Case Name: William D. English vs. Nathan Benedict et al.
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1852-10
Citations: 25 Miss. 167
Docket Number: 
Parties: William D. English vs. Nathan Benedict et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
William D. English vs. Nathan Benedict et al.
Parham v. Randolph, 4 How., cited and confirmed by the court.
Where the vendor makes fraudulent misrepresentations in relation to the title of land, the vendee will not be compelled to resort to an action at law on his covenant of warranty on failure of the title in the vendor.
He may go into equity for relief, although there has been no eviction by the paramount title. IIeld, that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the bill.
On appeal from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor.
William D. English filed his bill in the superior court of chancery against the defendants in error, to rescind a contract for land upon the ground of fraudulent representations in the sale by the vendor. The bill was demurred to, and demurrer sustained by the court, and D. English appealed.
II. T. Ellett, for appellant.
J. B. Coleman, for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Yerger
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case falls directly within the rule laid down in Parham v. Randolph, 4 How. R. 435, in which the court held, that where the vendor makes fraudulent misrepresentations in relation to the title of the land, the vendee will not be compelled to resort to an action at law on his covenants of warranty on failure of title, but may go into equity for relief, although there has been no eviction by the paramount title. This rule, wc think, lays down the law correctly on this subject; it has not been changed by any subsequent decision that has fallen under our notice. According to the principles laid down in it, the complainant was entitled to the relief asked by his bill. The court below erred, therefore, in sustaining the demurrer. The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded, with leave to the defendants to answer in thirty days.
Decree affirmed.