there may be instances in which to insist upon it will savor somewhat of repudiation—where a school house only commensurate with the needs of the district has been erected fairly and with the assent of all the people. We feel confident that in such cases a sense of honor will prompt the people to brush aside this particular defense of want of power, and move them to pay that which the law, indeed, but not conscience, would justify them in withholding. The judgment is affirmed. All concur.
Andrew J. Bowne, Plaintiff and Respondent v. C. C. Wolcott, Defendant and Appellant. (Two cases.)
1. Grant—Covenant of Seisin.
Where, in a covenant of seisin in a warranty deed, the grantor covenants “for his heirs, executors, and administrators,” no action will lie against the grantor for a breach of such covenant.
2. Same; Damages for Breach.
Where A. contracts to sell realty to B., and subsequently B. contracts to sell the land to C., and at B.’s request A. conveys direct to C. by deed with general covenant of seisin, the amount of recovery against A. for breach of such covenant would in any event be limited to the consideration received by him with interest thereon. § 4584 Comp. Laws.
3. Covenant of Seisin Does Not Run With the Land.
Under §§ 3444, 3445, 3446, Comp. Laws, the covenant of seisin does not run with the land in this state.
(January Term, 1891.)
APPEAL from district court, Grand Forks county; Hon. William B. McConnell, Judge.
J. F. McGee, for appellant; J. H. Bosard, for respondent.
Bartholomew, J. These are actions for damages for breach of covenant of seisin in deeds to realty. The facts connected with the title to the lands here involved, and the breach of the covenant, are identical with the facts of Bowne against the same defendant, ante, 419, (decided at this term,) and it would be unnecessary to add anything to what we then said, except
