Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 N.J.L. 338

Davis v. Clark

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 15, 1885

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1885-06-15

<p>Where a deed is made and accepted, in pursuance of an executory contract, the law presumes that it fully expresses the final intentions of the parties as to so much of the contract as it purports to execute.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1947

7 state decisions

201885189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

The Chancellor.

¶2The writ of error in this case is brought to reverse a judgment of'non-suit in an action of assumpsit brought to recover damages for the alleged deficiency in quantity of land (a farm in Gloucester county,) sold and coveyed by the defendant to Josiah Davis, the plaintiff’s intestate, in 1864. The plaintiff avers that the vendor sold and the vendee bought the property as containing two hundred and forty-four acres, while, in fact, it contained only about two hundred and twenty-four. The alleged deficiency was not discovered until nine or ten years after the conveyance, when it was disclosed, as it is said, by a survey made by Thomas W. Davis, the vendee’s grantee. The deed to Josiah Davis described the property as the plantation called Pleasant Meadows, and by metes and bounds, courses, distances and monuments, and stated at the end of the description that it conveyed all the land within the boundaries, be the quantity more or less. Thus, it will be seen that the deed not only shows that no representation as to the quantity was made, but also that it was understood and agreed that there should be none. It appears, by the testimony, that the property was bought for a gross sum, $21,000, and not by the acre. Where a deed is made and accepted in pursuance of an executory con*339tract, the laAV presumes that it fully expresses the final intentions of the parties as to so much of the contract as it purports to execute. Long v. Hartwell, 5 Vroom 116; Andrews v. Rue, 5 Vroom 402. In this case the deed purported to convey the whole of the property Avhieh Avas the subject of the bargain, and to execute the Avhole of the contract.

¶3The plaintiff, therefore, in the absence of fraud, is precluded from maintaining this action. Not only is no fraud proved, but none is alleged, and even the intention to impute it is disclaimed.

¶4The judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed.

¶5For affirmance — The Chancellor, Depue, Dixon, Magie, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Broavn, Clement, McGregor, Paterson, Whitaker. 12.

¶6For reversal — None

/47/njl/338 · .json · Public domain