for certain points of difference in the records which have been properly raised and pressed upon us, and which it is our duty to decide. The covenants of seisin in the various deeds on which these actions are based are in the following words: “And the said C. C. Wolcott, party of the first part, for his heirs, exexcutors, and administrators, does covenant with the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, that he is well seized in fee of the lands and premises aforesaid, and has good right to sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid.” The covenantor covenants “for his heirs, executors, and administrators.” Appellant contends that under that covenant no action will lie against the grantor, and we think the position is well taken. Courts cannot make contracts for parties, but must take them as they find them. If these covenants differ from usual covenants under the same circumstances, we are bound to presume that parties intend they should so differ. We are bound to presume that the grantee accepted this covenant because he could get no better. It may well be that the grantor was willing to bind his heirs and representatives to the extent of the estate that they might receive from him, but was unwilling to bind himself. The condition of the title in these cases makes that view all the more probable. The naked legal title was in the United States, and would be divested only by patent; and it is matter of general knowledge that, in the transactions of the general land office, years sometimes elapse between the time of the delivery of the patent certificate by the local office and the issue of the patent from the general office; and it may well be that the grantor in these cases desired to postpone all liabil- ity on the covenant of seisin until such time as in the ordinary course of events the patents would certainly be issued,sand so refused to create any liability during his own life time. This point was directly decided in Rufner v. McConnel, 14 Ill. 168, and Traynor v. Palmer, 86 Ill. 477; and we find no contrary ruling. If it was the intention to bind the grantor, and the wording of the covenant was a mistake, then plaintiff brought this action in the wrong forum. Courts of law can neither ignore nor correct mistakes.
This ruling settles one point common to both cases; but
