HALL V. SCOTX OOUKTY. 341 �If the note had never beea negotiated, then, on notice given by the defendant, the $3,000 paid in cash, and the shares of stock, would have been forfeited to the corporation, and the transaction closed. But the corporation, despite the agree- ment, set the note afloat, whereby innocent holders for value were protected, but the plainfciff, who was not an innocent holder, and who knew the facts, cannot hold the defendant for what he (the plaintiii) bas had to pay through his.own agency in this scheme to defeat the rights of the defendant. If the plaintiff acted in this matter, at the outcome, for eaid corporation, it may or may not be that he bas a cause of actiori against said corporatiocii He cannot, however, sever his knowledg* as president from his private knowledge of "what he did as president. ,,He knew, the eqiftities and is chargeable therewith; wherefore, th« motiojj. for judgment must be overruled. . -;!, , . ���Hall v. §cott CouNTTt . �{pircull Court, E. D. Missouri. February 4, 1881.) ' �1. GOVEPANTS OF SeiZIN RuH WITH THE' LaIID. �A covenant that land cpnyeye^ is. '^he property" of the gran^or, and that it " has a good right to sel] and convey the same," runs with the land, and will enure to the benefit of a subsequent transferee. �2. Agenct — Power to Sbi.I/. �The agents of a county, empowefed to sell property, can sell only the title and interest of the county, however the proceeds of the sale are to be applied. �Henry v. Atkinson, 50 Mo. 266. �3. Covenant — CoNSTBTfcTioN of. �A covenant of title should be taken in connection with the tenns of the deed, and as only applicable to lands thereby conveyed. �Hubert HarUson, for plaintiff. Louis Houck and William Hunter, for defendant. Treat, D. J. This is an action at law to recover on the alleged covenants by defendant in its deed to plaintiff 's grant- ��� �
