5 Johns. 120
Decided November 15, 1809
New York Supreme Court · decided 1809-11-15
THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration set forth a deed from the defendant to the plaintiff, dated the 17th December, 1806, for certain lands, in the county of Onondaga, in which, among… Held: pos J sessed and enjoyed, by the proprietors and claimants of the Great or Hardenbergh patent, &c. and so the plaintiff says, &c. There was a demurrer to the declaration and joinder.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1809-11-15
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1904
5 state decisions
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 →
¶1This case cannot be distinguished fronl that of Waldron v. M'Carty. (3 Johns. Rep. 471.) The covenant for quiet enjoyment goes to the possession and not to the title. It appears to be a technical rule, that nothing amounts to a breach of this covenant, but an actual eviction, or disturbance of the possession of the covenantee. (8 Co. 89. b. Comyn's Rep. Anon. 228.) The defendant is, therefore, entitled to judgment.
¶2Judgment for the defendant.