Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/354

342 FSDEBAli BEPOBXEB. �ors of certain tracts of land, the title to which never was in the defendant. The absence of title was only as to some of the tracts scheduled, and the claim for recovery is as to the proportionate value of said tracts. �Many points have been urged involving the power of the county court to convey such lands in any other than the alleged statutory mode. The lands were swainp and overfiowed lands, the title to which passed from the United States to the state of Missouri, and from the latter to the defendant. By the tenus of the state grant nothing passed to the defendant except what was in Scott county. The general law provided, it is urged, the manner in which the county migbt sell the same; also, the irainimMm priceper acre; which limitations on the county authority, it is averred, were wholly disregarded. How that may be it is not necessary now to determine. �Under the rulings of the supreme court of Missouri, nota- bly in the two cases reported in 23 Mo., (Dickson v. Desvre's Adm'r,*) the covenants of title ran with the land, and dam- ages for the breach are recoverable by the present grantee from the original covenantor, provided the county court had power to make said covenants, and was not restricted to a single conveyarice of the county 's right, title, and interest in the property. �Grants are sometimes to a county for a specified pur- pose, — as for the benefit of the public schools, — and con- sequently, if the county court could sell and warrant, and a breach of warranty should follow, it might be that the gen- erai revenues of the county could be made to answer instead of the specifie fund. That question has been often discussed, and it has been held, by the supreme court of Missouri, in accordance with sound principle, that the. agents of a county empowered to sell property can sell only the title and inter- est of the county, however the proceeds of the sale are to be applied. �If there passed into the county treasury, either for general or special uses, the purchase money received for the property, it might seem that the principle on which Wood v. City of �*23 Mo. 151 ; Chamber's Adm'r v. Smiih's Adm'r, la. 174. ��� �