The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-07-20
A FAMOUS LAND SUIT
Concluded from Second Pagc.)

concluded from Second Page.)
between the purchasers from Henry and
the owners Of the other half of the tract
the parts allotted to Robert and Henry
being OF equal value, the court would
require said owners to take their one
half IN the part not sold by Henry, for
IN this way the purchasers from him
would be protected In their rights, the
other owners get their full share OF the
'and, and full Justice would be done.
This view Is the one universally adopt
ed by the courts where one co5tenant
has conveyed pieces Of land by mctes
and bounds and partition is afterwards
made, and 1t is fully sustained By the
cases OF Dawson VS.. Laurenic, 80 Ohio.
5i3. and Agnew VS.. Davis S. w r.,
3'6, cited by the plaintiffs counsel
Counsel for Roberts assiynees claim
that this rule does nCt exist in the ease
at bar. because Henry made Il covenant
! In the deed which is = covenant Of quiet
| enjoyment Of Gne-half the land allotted
! TO Robert, runs with the land, binds
tIcnry's assignees and cstops them to
set up the above equity which they
would otherwise have. The principal
! authorities cited by counsel to sustain
| their position are as follows:
| House VS.. Mccormick 5 n Y. $40.
! which holds that If Il deed of conveyance
| contains 4 cOveant of quiet enjoyment
as to all persons claiming under p, the
grantees OF T. cannot claim the land
| conveyed against such covenant--,n-
der an after acquired title.
Rountree VS.. Davidson, IS n w r.
SIS. which Is case Of deed OF con-
vcSance with q consideration for gen
cral warranty OF title, and holds COW
enanted bound that the property In u
deed OF partition depends solely on the
covenants contained in the deed
Van Rcnsaalcr VS.. Kenny II How
291. case Of a deed of conveyance, and
holds grantor estopped to denying estate
affirmed by the deed
We!ser vs.. Weiser, Watts, 279, and
holds that the liability depends upon
the covenant in the deed, and that the
covenant here was only one of specia
warranty, and the plaintiffs could no'
recover
Beardsley VS.. Knight, SO Amer Dec.
W.. holds that tenant evictcd by para.
mount title cannot recover from Gotten,
ant any contribution to his loss. bu,
must bear it himself, which is in eff
feet plaintiffs claim III the case a, bar
Dickcrlntln vs.. IIoomcs, Graf, SS5, q
case In which the covenant was held tC
run with the land and bind the cove.
naTtor's children, and III which the
covenant was one against the "claims
CT all persons in the whole world" ant
not only 4 special covenant; though
Judge Mcncure argued that it was The
latter, the majority OF the court, how
ever, disagrecins with him. See PAGES
SS3 900
Get,ings KS Wo-thington. At II
22S. not a case OF 4 former decd Of par
tision. but one where the cour; made
the whole Of the grantees, from a co
tenant contribute to the loss ariS!nc
from paramount title. and not only the
unimp:oved ianGs 1t is nothing Xix.
the case at bar, and the majority Of
the court did not agree with the judge
who delivered the opinion as to how Tho
loss should be borne
! l think that these authorities sustain
the proposition, that if the parties 10 /;
decd Of partition choose to 80 furthc,
than Il mere allotment of the property
and to insert in the deed covenants fol
which thera are good considerations
then the parties rs in other deeds
would be bound by their covenants In
accordance with the terms thereof
Let us look al the Language of the Gov
cnant in the case at bar, which is
claimed to cstop the plaintiffs; IL reads
rs follows, !. c.: THAT he, the said Rob
! crt c. Levitt, his heirs and assigns s}nll
and PORTION CT the above described lot.
| partitioned and set off to him. the said
Robert G. Levitt to and for his
ana their own uses, without the let
/ hindrance. interruption. or demand Of
the said Henry G. Lovitt. his heirs or
assigns, or any other person claiming
| or to claim by from or under them, or
! any of them"
! This Is not a covenant Of general war
raEty of title, nor OF quiet enjoyment
! free from the claims Of all persons, but
| only covenant that neither Henry, nor
| any one claiming under him shall claim
| the said land.
! ] do not sec how 1t Is broken by the
| relief asked for in this bill. 50 fer from
| claiming the land, or any part Of it. al
lcMed to Robert these plaintiffs. who
have no interest whatever IN said land
| and do not claim any, arc only asking
the court to decree that they shall be