Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)

Citation: Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
Parent Document: Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1902-02-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8296427/leet-v-gratz/ ↗

Full Text

1,056 chars

Moreover, a covenantee can only recover from the cove-nantor money paid by the former in acquisition or extinguishment of what was adjudged to be the superior title. Morgan v. Railway Co., 63 Mo. 129. If he merely makes an abortive effort to acquire or extinguish it, securing present immunity from disturbance, but no assurance that it will be permanent^ there is no valid reason, so far as we can see, why the war-rantor should be required to reimburse him; for, peradventure, the holder of the better title may again assert it against the present tenant or some subsequent grantee, and lay the war-rantor open to another action on his covenant, against which a fruitless payment would be a doubtful defense. The conditions essential to a recovery of substantial damages are that there should have been either an eviction of the vendee from the premises, a failure to obtain possession thereof pursuant to his deed, a surrender of possession after a hostile assertion of the paramount title, or 4 purchase of or an extinction of such title by the vendee.

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text