Case Name: Stockton v. Cook
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1815-01-15
Citations: 3 Munf. 68
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stockton v. Cook.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 627–629

Head Matter:
Stockton v. Cook.
Wednesday, Jan. 15, 1815.
Sale of Land — Purchase with Notice of Encumbrance-Equitable Relief. — A purchaser of land, warranted by the vendor to be free of all encumbrance, is not precluded from relief, in equity, against his bond for the purchase money, by the circumstance that before he made the purchase, he was fully apprised of the encumbrance.
Bonds — Assignment. —The assignee of the bond is not in a better situation than the assignor. See Norton v. Rose, 2 Wash. 233, and Picket v. Morris, id. 255, accordant.
This was an application, to the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond district, by John Stockton, purchaser .of a tract of land from William and John Roberts, to be relieved against his bond for 521. 10s. part *of the purchase-money, on the ground that the land was encumbered by a previous mortgage for 641. 11s. 8d. from the said William Roberts to James Smith & Company; from which encumbrance the complainant insisted that he ought to be exonerated, because the original written agreement concerning the purchase, bound the said William and John Roberts to make him a title “clear of any fraud or deceit;” and their deed to him contained a clause warranting the land to be, at the time of granting the same, free and clear, of and from, all manner of encumbrances, and from the just claim of any person or persons whatsoever.”
The complainant, in his bill of injunction, did not mention whether he had notice of the encumbrance, at the time of the purchase, or not. He alleged, however, that, having paid the residue of the purchase money, he advertised his said bond, forewarning all persons from taking an assignment thereof; notwithstanding which, the defendant, Harman Cook, bought it for little more than five pounds, and after-wards, as assignee, brought an action'at law, and recovered a judgment upon it; — • that James Smith & Co. had commenced a suit in Pittsylvania County Court to foreclose the equity of redemption; and that William & John Roberts were insolvent.
It was alleged in Cook’s answer, and proved by testimony, that the complainant knew of the mortgage before he bought the land. It also appeared in evidence, that Cook, before he bought the bond, was fully informed of Stockton’s determination not to pay it in consequence of that encumbrance.
The late Chancellor, Wythe, on the 21st of September, 1803, dismissed the bill with costs; — -whereupon, in October following, the complainant filed a bill of review, alleging the said decree of dismission to be erroneous on its face; — in which last-mentioned bill a • new averment was inserted, “that the complainant was ignorant *of the encumbrance at the time of the purchase.’’ — But this allegation was disproved by the deposition of Samuel Calland, who stated “that he was and is now the agent of Smith & Company; that among their papers, he discovered a deed of trust or mortgage for Robert’s lands that he made Stockton acquainted therewith, who made light of it, and plainly intimated to the deponent, that he, Stockton, believed that the British debts would never be paid; and that the purchase by Stockton took place after this information was given him.” This witness stated, further, that he brought a suit, as agent, to foreclose the mortgage, or deed of trust, and obtained a decree, amounting to ninety-one pounds, which Stockton paid.
Chancellor Wythe, perceiving no cause for altering his decree, affirmed it, and adjudged and decreed, that the bill of review be dismissed with costs ¡ — whereupon the complainant appealed.
Sale of Land — Covenant against Incumbrances— What It Comprehends. — The case of Stockton v. Cook, 3 Munf. 68, very clearly shows that a covenant against incumbrances comprehends known as well as unknown Incumbrances, and that the vendee is not precluded by his previous knowledge from claiming the fulfilment of the covenant. Were it otherwise, it would be Impossible for him to provide ior his security. Tticker, P., in Jackson v. Ligón, 3 Leigh 186. See principal case also cited in Cabell v. Roberts, 6 Rand. 582.
Bonds — Assignment—Assignee Takes Subject to Equities. — The assignee of a bond takes it not only subject to all discounts, but to all equities to which it was subject in the hands of the obligee. Garland y. Richeson. 4 Rand. 269. citing the principal case. See further, foot-note to Norton v. Rose, Z Wash. 233; foot-note to Picket v. Morris, 2 Wash. 255; monographic note on “Bonds” appended to Ward v. Churn, 18 Gratt. 801; monographic note on “Assignments” appended to Ragsdale v. flagy, 8-Gratt. 409.
Note. The other material circumstances are noticed in the opinion of Judge Fleming. — Note in Original Edition.

Opinion:
Wednesday, January 15th, 1812, the following was pronounced as the opinion of this Court, (consisting of Judges Fleming, Brooke, Cabell, and Coalter,) JUDGE FLEMING dissenting.
"This Court is of opinion, that the said decree is erroneous: therefore, it is decreed' and ordered that the same be reversed and annulled, with costs: and this Court, proceeding to make such decree as the said Superior Court of Chancery ought to have pronounced, is of opinion, that the decree of the said Court, pronounced the twenty-first day of September, 1803, and sought by the bill of reyiew in this cause to be reviewed and reversed, is also erroneous: therefore it is further decreed and ordered that the same be reversed and annulled; that the injunction awarded the said John Stockton to stay execution of a judgment recovered against him by the said Harman Cook in the District Court, held at New London at September Term, 1797, be perpetual; and that the ^appellees, out of the estate of the said Harman Cook in their hands to be administered, if so much thereof they have, pay to the appellants the costs expended by the said John Stockton, as well in prosecuting his suit on the bill of review, as in prosecuting the original suit in the said Court of Chancery. "