Rockafellor v. Gray
194 Iowa 1280 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The covenant of seisin runs with the land, allowing a remote grantee to maintain an action for its breach against the original covenantor, even when the covenantor had neither title nor possession at the time of the conveyance.
Facts:
- On October 14, 1907, Doffing conveyed eighty acres of land to a plaintiff (Rockafellor), who assumed an outstanding mortgage.
- Foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage culminated in a sheriff's deed being delivered to Connelly on February 23, 1911.
- Connelly never took actual possession of the property.
- On April 20, 1911, Connelly conveyed the premises to Dixon by a warranty deed which recited a consideration of $4,000.
- Dixon never took possession of the property.
- On June 26, 1911, Dixon conveyed the premises to Hansen & Gregerson by a special warranty deed reciting a consideration of $7,000.
Procedural Posture:
- The original owner, Rockafellor, sued in trial court to set aside the foreclosure sale and Connelly's resulting sheriff's deed, alleging the foreclosure was void for lack of jurisdiction.
- Hansen & Gregerson, the current owners, were named as parties and filed a cross-petition against Connelly.
- The cross-petition sought damages from Connelly for breach of the covenant of seisin in his deed to Dixon, contingent upon Rockafellor succeeding in his suit.
- The trial court entered a decree for Rockafellor, voiding the foreclosure and Connelly's deed.
- The trial court also entered judgment on the cross-petition in favor of Hansen & Gregerson and against Connelly for $4,000 plus interest.
- Connelly (appellant) appealed the judgment on the cross-petition to the Supreme Court of Iowa, with Hansen & Gregerson as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a remote grantee have a cause of action against a remote grantor for breach of the covenant of seisin when the remote grantor had neither title to nor possession of the land at the time of conveyance?
Opinions:
Majority - Faville, J.
Yes. A remote grantee has a cause of action against a remote grantor for breach of the covenant of seisin, and possession by the grantor is not required. The court reaffirmed its long-standing rule from Schofield v. Iowa Homestead Co., which holds that the covenant of seisin runs with the land. The court's reasoning is that a breach of the covenant creates a chose in action (a right to sue) for the immediate grantee. Each subsequent conveyance of the property operates as an assignment of that chose in action to the next grantee. Therefore, the right to sue the original covenantor for the breach is transferred with the deed itself, making the original covenantor's possession of the land irrelevant to the remote grantee's ability to bring a suit.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Iowa's adherence to the minority 'English rule' that the covenant of seisin runs with the land, treating it as settled law and a rule of property. By explicitly rejecting a possession requirement, the court clarifies that the legal mechanism is the assignment of a chose in action through subsequent deeds. This provides greater protection for remote grantees than the majority American rule, as it allows them to sue a remote grantor directly for a title defect, and it creates predictability by fixing damages at the consideration recited in the original defective deed, which the grantor is estopped from denying.
Unlock the full brief for Rockafellor v. Gray