Noonan v. Lee
67 U.S. 499 (1862)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Noonan v. Lee, 67 U.S. 2 Black 499 499 (1862)

Noonan v. Lee

67 U.S. (2 Black) 499

Syllabus

1. Parol evidence, not inconsistent with a written instrument, is admissible to apply such instrument to its subject.

2. Where a map or plat is referred to in a deed for the purpose of fixing a boundary, the effect is the same as if it were copied into the deed.

3. This is a familiar rule of construction in all those cases wherein no other description is given in the title deeds than the number of the lot on the surveyor's plan of a township or other large tract of land.

4. Where a plat is referred to in a deed simply for the purpose of fixing boundary, the fact that such plat was illegally made does not in any wise effect the validity of the deed.

5. The statute of Wisconsin of 1849 permits a grantor out of possession to make a valid conveyance of lands adversely held by another.

Page 67 U. S. 500

6. In all cases where there is adverse possession, by virtue of a paramount title, of lands thus conveyed, such possession is regarded as eviction, and involves a breach of the covenant of warranty.

7. Where the paramount title is in the warrantor and the adverse possession is tortious, it is no eviction either actual or constructive, and no action will lie upon the covenant.

8. A purchaser in the undisturbed possession of the land will not be relieved against the payment of the purchase money on the mere ground of defect of title, there being no fraud or misrepresentation.

9. In such a case, he must seek his remedy at law on the covenants in the deed.

10. If there is no fraud and no covenants to secure the title, he is without remedy, as the vendor selling in good faith is not responsible for the goodness of his title beyond the extent of his covenants in the deed.

11. Relief will not be afforded upon the ground of fraud unless it be made a distinct allegation in the bill, so that it may be put in issue by the pleadings.

12. Where a party designing to foreclose a mortgage notified the mortgagor before filing the bill that he elected to consider the entire amount of the mortgage debt as due, he was entitled to a decree for the full amount although, according to the terms of the bond, one of the installments was not due when the bill was filed.

13. The equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is derived from the Constitution and laws of the United States, and their power and rules of decision are the same in all the states.

14. Rules of decision established by the Supreme Court for its own government and that of subordinate courts are unaffected by state legislation.

15. Without the authority of a rule of the Supreme Court, a district court of the United States has no authority to direct a mortgagor to pay the balance of debt which may remain unsatisfied after the sale of the mortgaged premises.

Page 67 U. S. 501

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.