Comings v. Little
Comings v. Little
Opinion of the Court
afterward drew up the opinion of the Court.
It is objected, that the covenants of the defendants are to be taken distributively, and that the action should have been brought against Hilliard alone. But this objection cannot be maintained. The distinction is this. Where a man covenants with two or more jointly, and the interest and cause of action of the covenantees is several, each of the covenantees may bring an action for his particular damage, notwithstanding the words of the covenant are joint. But where two persons covenant jointly with another, a joint action lies for the covenantee on a breach of the covenant by one of the covenantors only; because they are sureties for each other for the due performance of the covenant. 1 Wms’s Saund. 154, note.
As to the plaintiff’s claim of further damages on account of the defendants’ neglecting to remove the incumbrance in favor of Davis, and thereby to relieve Frye from his liability to him, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages there for, as the defendants did not covenant to remove that incum brance, hut only to indemnify Frye from his liability thereon and he has not yet been damnified.
Defendants defaulted.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Thomas B. Comings versus Charles C. Little
- Status
- Published