Doe ex dem. Pool v. Roe

Citations

• 21 Miss. 466

Syllabus

<p>In an action of ejectment the lessor of the plaintiff claimed the lands in controversy, which were - two lols in the town of Quitman, unde'r a deed from the former proprietors of the town, which conveyed all the land, except the “ lots which had been previously sold in said town, and which would more ■fully appear by reference to the map of said town : ” it was held, that parol evidence was inadmissible on the part of the defendants, to show that the lots in controversy had been previously sold ; the deed referred to the map' for the lots already sold, and in the absence of proof that the map could not be produced, parol evidence could not be admitted, except in explanation of the map.</p> <p>Where two parties claim in an action of ejectment from a common grantor, and the plaintiff in the ejectment claims under a deed conveying all the lands in a town, except those lots previously sold ; and the defendants claim under a deed subsequent in date two of the lots in the town ; it was held, that the common grantor, who, in both cases, had given covenants of warranty, was not a competent witness for the defendants to prove that the lots in controversy had been previously sold by him to the defendants, though the deed had been executed subsequently to his deed to the plaintiff. His interest would be direct in sustaining the latter sale, as if it failed he would be directly liable on his covenant; while his liability on the first covenant would depend on the fact whether he had or not previously sold the lots.</p>