 | William Sheppard - 1820 - 1178 頁
...rest of the deed, is material; per Clinch, i Leon. 122. A recital is not a necessary part of a deed, either in law or equity. — It may be made use of...the parties, but it hath no effect, or operation. 3 Chan. Ca. 101. A recital is not conclusive, because it is no direct affirmation. Co. Lit. 352, b.... | |
 | Charles Barton - 1821 - 586 頁
...any effect or operation, but being joined, and considered with the rest of the deed, is of great use to explain a doubt of the intention and meaning of the parties, but as it is no direct affirmation, it is not conclusive p ; and " Keilw. 84 ; 2 Co. 36. c. 5, 1 2 ; Co.... | |
 | CHARLES BARTON - 1821 - 580 頁
...any effect or operation, but being joined, and considered with the rest of the deed, is of great use to explain a doubt of the intention and meaning of the parties, but as it is no direct affirmation, it is not conclusivep; and " Keilw. 84 ; 2 Co. 36. c. 5,12; Co. Lit.... | |
 | New York (State). Court of Chancery, William Johnson - 1822 - 622 頁
...equity, or make it to have another consideration than it else would have? The reciting part of a deed is not at all a necessary part either in law or equity....be made use of to explain a doubt of the intention or meaning of the parties, but it hath no effect of operation. But when it comes to limit the estate,... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, John Bayly Moore - 1826 - 768 頁
...that " the reciting part of a deed is not at all a necessary part, either in law or equity: — that it may be made use of to explain a doubt of the intention and meaning of the parties, but that it has no effect or operation : — but that when it comes to limit an estate, there the deed... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, John Bayly Moore - 1826 - 780 頁
...Earl of Mountague v. Lord Bath, Lord Chief Justice Holt said (a), that " the reciting part of a deed is not at all a necessary part, either in law or equity: that it may be made use of to explain a doubt of the intention and meaning of the partiis, Imt that... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Chancery - 1828 - 592 頁
...part either in 'Ihe reciting intention and meaning of the parties, but it hath no Affect or opelaw or equity. It may be made use of to explain a doubt of the r/nonecessa- rat ' OD - But wnen !t ">mes to limit the estate, there the deed is ry part either to... | |
 | New York (State). Supreme Court, John Anthon - 1854 - 442 頁
...J. Holt, in Bath v. Montgera, (3 Ch. Gas. 101,) who there says, " that the reciting part of a deed is not at all a necessary part, either in law or equity; that it hath no effect or operation when it comes to limit, then the deed is to have its effect, according... | |
 | Ohio. Supreme Court - 1872 - 526 頁
...relation to recitals, and the general principle is undoubted. "A recital is not a necessary part of a deed either in law or equity. It may be made use of to...the parties, but it hath no effect or operation." Shop. Touch. 76, and n. 2; 2 Chan. Cas. 101. " A recital is no estoppel, because not a direct affirmation."... | |
 | Sir Howard Warburton Elphinstone, Robert Frederick Norton, James William Clark - 1889 - 746 頁
...description, or a general or ambiguous statement, contained in the recitals." "The reciting part of a deed is not at all a necessary part either in law or equity....full, without any manner of contradiction whatsoever;" per Holt, CJ, Bath & Mountague's Case, 3 Ca. Oh. 101. "When the words in the operative part of a deed... | |
| |
The reciting part of a deed * is not at all a necessary part, either in law or equity. It may be made use of to explain a doubt of the intention and meaning of the parties, but it hath no effect or operation. 
