Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0208-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Irwin against Hamilton and wife.
    
      Thursday, September 28.
    The right of action for a breach of a parol contract for the sale of land, is in the the vended and not in his land itself.
    In Error.
    WRIT of error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county.
    in the lower Court, it was an action on the case brought , r . -r » by Robert Marmitón and Margaret his wire, against Joseph Irwin, on a parol contract made between Irwin, and Samuel Robinson, deceased, for the sale of twenty four acres of land by Irvoin to Robinson, for the sum of twenty four pounds lawful money of the United States. On payment of the money, Irwin was to make a conveyance in fee simple to Robinson, his heirs, and assigns. The declaration set forth, that the money was paid to Irwin before the bringing of this suit; that Robinson made his last will and testament in writing, duly executed, and devised the said land to his daughter Margaret, one of the plaintiffs, after which he died; and that the said Irwin although often thereto required, both by the said Robinson in his life time, and by the plaintiffs since his death, had not executed a conveyance in fee simple for the land aforesaid, but the same had refused, &c.'
    Forward, for the plaintiff in error,
    admitted that an ejectment might have been supported, or that an action on the contract for damages might have been sustained by the executors of Robinson; but denied that his devisee could support such an action.
    
      M1-Donald, for the defendants in error,
    said, that the estate of Robinson not being interested in t;he matter, his executors might not choose to bring suit on the contract, and there was no mode of compelling them’. Here was an agreement, the benefit of which was to accrue to the person who held the land; it ran with the land ; and the rule was, that where the estate passed, all warranties and covenants connected with it, passed to the assignee. Cro. El. 373. Id. 436. Skin. 305.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tilghman C. J.

This is a personal action, founded on a contract to which the plaintiffs were not parties.—The right of action for breach of the contract, was in Robinson in his life time, and is now in his executors or administrators, in whose name a suit may be brought, for the use of the plain, tiffs. Robinson had power to devise the land, the equitable estate of which was in him—but -he could not by any means assign or transfer his right of action for a breach of the contract, so as to vest in the assignee a legal right, sufficient to support an action in his own name. That was a chose in action, not assignable at law, though assignable in equity. We are of opinion, that the declaration in this case, sets forth no cause of action on which judgment could be rendered for the plaintiffs. Consequently the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.