Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Brown v. Lober

Law Dictionary
CASE BRIEFS

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
AA
Font size

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.75 Ill. 2d 547, 27 Ill. Dec. 780, 389 N.E.2d 1188 (1979)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiffs purchased 80 acres of land from William and Faith Bost in 1957 and took possession and recorded their deed. Thereafter, Plaintiffs granted a coal option to Consolidated Coal Company for the coal rights on the land for $6,000. However, approximately two years later, on May 4, 1976, the Plaintiffs “discovered” that a predecessor in title had reserved two-thirds of the coal interest in himself, and, based on that fact, the Plaintiffs and the coal company renegotiated their contract for $2,000. Plaintiffs then sued the executor of Faith Bost, Plaintiffs’ 1957 grantee, for alleged breach of the covenant of seisen.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Court held that a suit based on a breach of a covenant of seisen must be brought within 10-years of the passing of the impaired title. In contrast to a breach of a covenant of seisen, the covenant of warranty of quiet enjoyment is prospective in nature and is breached only when there is actual or constructive eviction of the covenantee by the paramount titleholder.


Facts. Plaintiffs purchased 80 acres of land from William and Faith Bost in 1957, and took possession and recorded their deed. Thereafter, Plaintiffs granted a coal option to Consolidated Coal Company for the coal rights on the land for $6,000, but approximately two years later, on May 4, 1976, Plaintiffs “discovered” that a predecessor in title had reserved two-thirds of the coal interest in himself, and, based on that fact, the Plaintiffs and the coal company renegotiated their contract for $2,000. Plaintiffs then sued the executor of Faith Bost, Plaintiffs’ 1957 grantee, for alleged breach of the covenant of seisen. The lower court found that the complaint was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations, and that, despite a breach of the covenant of seisen, the Defendant must prevail. The intermediate appellate court reversed and remanded. The Defendant appealed.

Issue. Is the complaint of Plaintiffs barred by the statute of limitations?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following