Court Opinion

ID: 6145690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-05 15:25:27.85732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:51.281256
License: Public Domain

The Supreme Court held, that the deed was not good as a bargain and sale, for want of a pecuniary consideration, but that it might be sustained as a covenant to stand seized to uses on the part of the trustee, though a stranger to the blood of the grantors and grantees.
• The Court of Errors held on the other hand, that no use can be raised on a covenant to stand seized, in favor of a stranger or one not of the blood of the covenantor, though the covenantee is a mere trustee for the relations of the blood of the covenantors, it makes no difference; that the deed from the husband and wife to the trustee, was void for want of a pecuniary consideration; and that it could not operate as a covenant to stand seized to the uses expressed in the deed, because the trustee being a mere stranger, there was no consideration of blood or marriage, between him and the grantors to raise the use, and create a seisin in him by force of the statute of uses.