Filed Date: 5/9/1956
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/28/2024
The action was for damages for alleged breach of warranty of title and quiet enjoyment. The plaintiffs had been defendants in an ejectment action and the decision in that action was adverse to them. The judgment in the present action dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on the merits. We withheld decision and remitted the matter to the trial court to make findings of fact.
The question presented upon this appeal was whether the defendants, the grantors in the deed, had notice of the pendency of the ejectment action brought against the grantees and had opportunity to defend. The trial court has now found (1) that the defendants had no formal notice to defend; (2) that the plaintiffs failed to prove any constructive notice to defend, and (3) that the defendants were given no opportunity to defend., We said: (1 A D 2d 762) “ Formal notice of the commencement of the action and express notice to defend are not essential to
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial had.
All concur. Present — McCubn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball and Wheeleb, JJ.
Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.