1 Yeates 322 | Pa. | 1794
This action, instituted against the husband and wife, is novel to us, as well as the question itself. If the plaintiff wished to secure himself, as to the lands holding out 66 acres, he should have had an express covenant for,, that purpose. It was his own folly not to have had the quantity
Cases of this kind must frequently have happened before, and yet we never heard of a suit being brought under such *3241 circum*stances. There appears to us to be neither J an nor implied covenant on which the plaintiff can maintain his action.
Verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Heatly afterwards moved for a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, but his motion was denied, the case appearing to be too plain to admit of further discussion.