
    Dunham against Pratt.
    NEW-YORK
    October, 1817.
    In a declaration for 1 he hreacjvof deed’n^sufir tha^’th^defln6 toatheCpi”totf¿ premíses“«M« «JsriJmmKtd wSthoutTnyfur’ therdoacrp 1
    THIS was an action of covenant, for the breach of a cove-7 nant °f title, in a deed. The declaration stated that on the 18th °f January, 1785, the defendant, by his certain deed poll, of which proferí was made, did, in consideration of 671. lawful money of Massachusetts, give, grant, sell, convey, and confirm unto the plaintiff, and to his heirs and assigns for ever, “ two third parts of a certain right or share of land in the said deed -particularly mentioned and spexijled, to have and to bold, &c., and that the defendant, by the said deed poll, covenanted, that he had good right to sell and convey the premises to the plaintiff, his heirs and assigns The breach negatived the covenant.
    The defendant pleaded, 1 .Mon est factum. 2. Payment and satisfaction of damages, 3. A release. 4. That the defendant was seised, and had good right to convey; and, 5. That on the 2d of November, 1788, the defendant being an insolvent debtor, within the meaning of the insolvent act of the 13th of April, 1786, in conjunction with three fourths in value of his creditors, presented a petition to William B. Whiting, Esquire, then being one of the judges of the inferior court of common pleas, in and for the county of Columbia, the defendant having been arrested, and then being under arrest, by process issued • ut of that court, praying that his estate might be assigned, and he be discharged ; and that such proceedings were thereupon had, that the said William B. Whiting, so being one of the judges of the inferior court of common pleas, of Columbia county, on the 28 th January, 1788, in writing under his hand and seal, bearing date the same day and year, discharged the defendant.
    The plaintiff replied to the second, third and fourth pleas, and demurred generally to the fifth plea.
    
      Cady, in support of the demurrer.
    He cited 1 Saund. 233. n. (2) 2 Saund. 336. note (1)
    
      Storrs, contra,
    admitted the plea was bad, but he said, the declaration was also bad, and the defendant was, therefore, entitled to judgment on the demurrer. The declaration ought to state where the land lies, and describe it particularly.
   Per Curiam.

The declaration alleges, that the defendant, for the consideration of a certain sum of money specified, did give, grant, sell, and convey, to the plaintiff and his heirs and assigns for ever, two third parti- of a certain right or share of land, in the said deed particularly mentioned and specified, without any further description. This, we think, is all that was necessary. It is enough to prevent surprise on the defendant, and gives him all that is necessary to enable him to plead, and defend the action. Proferí of the deed being made, he is entitled to oyer, and thereby obtains every particularity he can want. This mode of declaring is sanctioned by the cases, and highly approved by Sergeant Williams, in his notes to Saunders. (1 Saund. 233. n. 2.) Courts very much discountenance unnecessary prolixity of pleading; and, therefore, says he, in an action of covenant for non-payment of rent, it is sufficient to allege in the declaration, that the plaintiff, on such a day and year, at such a place, by a certain indenture made between him of the one part, and the defendant of the other part, (which the plaintiff brings here into court,) demised to the defendant certain premises partic'ularly mentioned and described in the said in denture, without setting out particularly the parcels of land demised. (2 Chitt11's Fl. 192. n. (i.) If this be a sound rule in covenant for non-payment of rent, it is equally applicable to the case before us. We are, accordingly, of opinion, that the declaration is sufficient, and that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.

Judgment for the plaintiff.  