Case Name: Simeon Hovey vs. James Smith
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1871-01
Citations: 2 Mich. N.P. R. 39
Docket Number: 
Parties: Simeon Hovey vs. James Smith.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 39–41

Head Matter:
Simeon Hovey vs. James Smith.
la a deed of land? belonging to tbe hnshand, though the wif* join in the dried, with covenant» yet the covenants will be held to be th*w« of the htuband alune. Declaration — Desorij»tion of lands in, &c. — Allegation as to covenants.
Error to ,St.‘ Clair Circuit.

Opinion:
Opinion Ip
CumsTiANcr. J.
This was a question of cove nant brought upon the' covenant of seizin and good title contained in a deed of conveyance of land. The questions involved were upon exceptions taken to the admission of evidence.
Ildd, That there was no error in admitting the deed claimed to. contain the covenant declared upon. The objection was that it was inadmissible under the declaration, and the objection was sought to be sustained on two gronnds .
1. That the deed appears to have been executed by different parties, or by another party beside the one described in the declaration.
2. That the description of the land which the deed purports to convey is different from that described; in the declaration, as eonveyed by it.
The deed offered was executed by the defendant and his wife to the plaintiff. But it appears from the evidence that the land was not the individual property of jthe wife. The only use'in the wife's joining in the deed was to release her contingent right of dower. Her covenant would be void, and any covenant made by the two would be the sole covenant of her husband. The deed was the conveyance of the husband, the covenant was his, and there was therefore no material variance in the declaration.
The declaration purports to describe a part of the land described'in the deed, and the covenant was alleged to be broken only as to a part, of the land. The declaration alleges the conveyance to have been of "certain piece.» or parcels of land situate in the Township of China, ¡it. Clair County, among which Were the following pieces or parcels of land." and then follows the description ot eighteen acres by metes and bounds, a description, however, Which does not, at least in words, correspond with any particular piece of land as described in t he deed. And this is the variance in the description to which objection is taken. .
Helds That whether the lands , described ih the declaration Were included in the lands described in the deed was properly a matter of proof. It was not required to describe in the declaration iii the words of .the deed, unless the pleader undertook to give the description of the title m hare verba, but was always matter of evidence outside of the deed to bring the land described in the declaration within the description contained in the deed.
Another ground of objection was considered by the Court,, which was as follows: The covenant was in form plural, applying to the Wife as well as to the husband! and yet it was in law the covenant of the husband alone. It was also, in form that they were well seized of.the premises, etc. Though the declaration sets this out as the covenant of the defendant, yet it states the seizin covenanted for,asinthe deed,that they were Well seized etc. As the declaration thus leaves it entirely uncertain who Were seized, not mentioning the wife at all in this connection it woiild clearly have been bad upon demurrer. But after trial and verdict, the Court held the declaration good, as there was no verbal variance between-the covenant set out in the declaration and that contained in the deed, it appearing from tne record who the parties were,entering into the covenant, an 1 it being dcemed.by the Court that the word " they" was simply a «lenca! error for the Word " his " It probably arose from tho «se of the printed blank, in which the plural is employed It was therefore held that there was'ho error in tho admission of the deed.