Section 10. A deed in substance following the form entitled ''Warranty Deed'' shall when duly executed have the force and effect of a deed in fee simple to the grantee, his heirs and assigns, to his and their own use, with covenants on the part of the grantor, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and successors, with the grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns, that, at the time of the delivery of such deed, (1) he was lawfully seized in fee simple of the granted premises, (2) that the granted premises were free from all encumbrances, (3) that he had good right to sell and convey the same to the grantee and his heirs and assigns, and (4) that he will, and his heirs, executors and administrators shall, warrant and defend the same to the grantee and his heirs and assigns against the lawful claims and demands of all persons.
Notes of Decisions
Silverblatt v. Livadas, 164 N.E.2d 875 (Mass. 1960).
“183, §§ 10, 16) which defines “warranty covenants” in part as a warranty that the grantor is “lawfully seized in fee simple of the granted premises; that they are free from all encumbrances,” and that they will be warranted and defended “against the lawful claims and demands of…”
Rose v. Nassif, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 330 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 2× “260, §2B; (2) the Roses are not the “real parties in interest” to maintain the action pursuant to the Massachusetts Condominium Statute, G.L.c. 183, §10(b); and (3) the Roses cannot recover their damages — economic losses— from Sasaki because of the “economic loss doctrine.”
Simmons v. Swift, 24 Mass. App. Dec. 187 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1962).
“The defendant’s warranty deed is statutory form, (See G. L. c. 183, §10) dated November 28, 1958, in which deed the plaintiffs are grantees, described the land as follows: “northerly by Waquoit Road also called Fresh Pond, so called; southerly by an old way called Slough Road;…”
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, § 10(b): 1 case
Rose v. Nassif, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 330 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1993).
“260, §2B; (2) the Roses are not the “real parties in interest” to maintain the action pursuant to the Massachusetts Condominium Statute, G.L.c. 183, §10(b); and (3) the Roses cannot recover their damages — economic losses— from Sasaki because of the “economic loss doctrine.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.