{
  "id": 8686924,
  "name": "JOHN MIDGETT vs. ISRAEL BROOKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Midgett v. Brooks",
  "decision_date": "1851-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "145",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "12 Ired. 145"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. 145"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Hawks 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Bur. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bur.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 7321,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.284616430089508e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3873098392995113
    },
    "sha256": "10c98cf739ceedab4ec55ca86f119d7366587e0f5b938e60fd2cc9d5a2d5f20c",
    "simhash": "1:2c3536fb185240a8",
    "word_count": 1268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:22.332414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN MIDGETT vs. ISRAEL BROOKS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Nash, J.\nThis cause in here upon a case agreed. The* declaration contains two counts ; one on a covenant of sei-' sin, the other upon a covenant of quiet enjoyment. It is agreed, that if upon either count the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery, judgment shall be-rendered for him for the sum set forth. The alleged covenants are contained in a deed of bargain and sale for a tract of land, sold by William S. Douglas, who is now dead, to-the plaintiff. The deed, after' setting out in the premises the parties to it, and specifying the land, and the interest eonveyed, goes on as follows:: \u201cTo have and to hold the-above described piece or parcel of land free and clear from me, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and from all other persons whatsoever, unto the said John Midgett,. &c.\u201d Midgett was sued and turned out of possession by paramount title.\nWe are of opinion, that the clause in the deed, as above-set forth, contains a covenant for quiet enjoyment. The defendant, through his counsel, insists, that the deed contains no covenant whatever. It is true, the word covenant or agreement, does not appear- in it, nor is it necessary that either of them should. No precise or technical language is required\u2019by law, in which a covenant shall be worded \u2014 any words which amount to or import, an agreement, are sufficient, a covenant being an agreement or contract under seal;-. Platt on covenants 28; Lamb and Morris, 1 Bur. 290. The words in the deed we are considering, upon their face import a promise or agreement on the part of Douglas, the vendor, that Midgett shall enjoy the premises free from disturbance from any one, claiming by title paramount; and that is a covenant for quiet enjoyment; Woodward v Ramsay, 2. Haw. 335. The languge of the deed is, that he \u201c shall have and hold, that is, possess, the land iree and clear, &c.\u201d It is. objected, however, that these words are-in the habendum of the deed, and constitute a part of it. By themselves, they properly constitute no part of the ha-bendum. The office of the habendum is to point out the interest or estate conveyed. The words, \u201c free and clear,\u201d &c., go beyond that, and, in connction with the habendum, technically so called, are unmeaning. But it is a rule in the construction of deeds, that every: clause and word, if possible and consistent with law, shall have a meaning given to it. If, however, they do constitute a part of the ha-bendum, they certainly are out of place, but that circumstance ought not to deprive them of their existence and legal effect. It is the office of the premises to specify the parties to the deed and the thing granted; if, however, the name of the grantee appears for the first time in the haben-dum, it is sufficient; Hafner v Irwin, 4 Dev. and Bat. 433; Coke on Lit. 26 b. note. Now, if a grantee may appear for the first time in the habendum, we can see no good reason, why a covenant may not. Had the words we are considering appeared in a separate clause to themselves, there can be no doubt as to their being a covenant for quiet enjoyment. The whole clause, however, is a covenant for quiet enjoyment. An habendum clause is not essential to the Validity or completeness of a deed \u2014 it may be entirely omitted without affecting its validity. The parties, the thing granted, and the quantity of estate may all be contained in the premises \u2014 and\u201d such is the modern or most frequent mode of conveyances; 4 Kent\u2019s Com., 468.\nIt is the duty of this Court to look into the whole case, and to pronounce such judgment as the Court below ought to have done; and believing that the deed contains a covenant for quiet enjoyment, judgment is given to the plaintiff.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirtaed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Nash, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donnell, for the plaintiff.",
      "Shaw, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN MIDGETT vs. ISRAEL BROOKS.\nWhere a deed for land, after setting forth the parties, the description ef the land and the interest conveyed, goes on as follows: \u201cto have and to hold the above described.peice or parcel of land, free and clear from me, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and from all other persons . whatsoever, unto the said, &c.\u201d Held, that this clause contained a cove- . nant for quiet enj oyment.\nNo precise or technical language is required by law, in which a covenant shall be worded \u2014 any words, wheh amount to, or import an agreement, being under seal, are sufficient.\nThe cases of Woodward, v Ramsay, 3 Hawks 335 [and Hafncr v Irwin, 4 Dev. and Bat. 433, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Hyde County, at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Caldwell presiding.\nThis was an action upon the covenant, contained in the following deed:\n\u201c This Indenture, made this 24th day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine, between William S. Douglas and John Midgett, both of the County of Hyde and State of North Carolina, wit-nesseth : That the said William S. Douglas, for and in consideration of the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars to him in hand paid by the said John Midgett, the receipt and payment of which is hereby acknowledged, hath bargained and sold, and by these presents doth bargain, sell and convey to him, the said John Midgett, his heirs and assigns forever, a certain piece. or parcel of land, situate and lying in the County and State aforesaid, in the settlement of Mount Pleasant, and beginning at, &c., (here the boundaries are described,) containing fifteen acres more or less, to have and to hold the above described piece or parcel of land free and clear from me, my heirs; executors, administrators and assigns and from all other persons whatsoever, unto him the said John Midgett, his heirs, executors, administrators aud assigns.\n\u201cIn witness whereof, I, the said William S. Douglas, hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year above written.\n(Signed.) WILLIAM S. DOUGLAS, (Seal.)\n\u201c Sealed and executed i\n1 in the presence of $\nReILY MURRAY,\n\u201c Geo. H. Siiildon.\u201d\nThe declaration contained acount on a covenant of seisin, \u2022and also a count on a 'Covenant of quiet enjoyment. The \u2022defendant pleaded the general issue \u2014 covenants performed. The following lacts are agreed upon : The plaintiff took, .possession of the premises described in the deed, and continued in possession until the death of the defendant\u2019s intes-tate, the party to the said deed. After the death of the said \u25a0intestate, a suit in ejectment was brought against the plaintiff by one' Samuel S. Pugh, who.had paramount title to the premises: a.judgment was recovered by him against the .plaintiff: the said Pugh sued out a writ of possession and -evicted the plaintiff from the premises on the 26th of Feb-ttary 1850.\n\u2022' \"It is further agreed,' that, if the Court is of opinion that the plaintiff -can recover, a judgment shall be rendered -against the defendant for one hundred and twenty dollars, with interest from the 26th of February, 1850: if the Court Is of opinion that the plaintiff cannot recover, it is agreed, that .judgment of non suit be entered against the plaintiff.\nThe Court on the said case agreed is of opinion, that the. plaintiff is entitled to recover on the first count mentioned: and. thereupon it is considered, that the said plaintiff recover against the said Israel Brooks, &c. From this judgment \u25a0the defendant appealed.\nDonnell, for the plaintiff.\nShaw, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0145-01",
  "first_page_order": 153,
  "last_page_order": 156
}