94

the covenant. But an actual or constructive eviction, surrender, or attorning, is necessary for breach of a covenant of warranty, though there may be a recovery where there has

95

Mitchell v. Kepler, 75 Iowa, 207; 39 | N. Y. St. R. 924; 20 N. E. 581; 39 N. W. 24; Jewett v. Fisher (Kan. Alb. L. J. 370; 3 L. R. A. 789; 10 Am. App.), 58 Pac. 1023; Moore v. Mer-St. Rep. 432, aff'g 1 N. Y. St. R. 597; rill, 17 N. H. 75; 43 Am. Dec. 593; Carter v. Denman, 23 N. J. L. 260; Fowler v. Poling, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 300 (case modified 6 Barb. 165); Westrope v. Chambers, 51 Tex. 178. See Mackey v. Collins, 2 Nott. & McC. (N. C.) 186; 10 Am. Dec. 586; Building L. & W. Co. v. Fray, 96 Va. 559; 1 Va. S. C. Rep. 70; 32 S. E. 58; David v. Sabin, C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 523; Rawle on Covenants for Title (5th ed.), secs. 69, 205. See citations in last preceding note.

94

Corbett v. Wren, 25 Ore. 305; 35 Pac. 658; Funk v. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 109; 14 Am. Dec. 617; Cathcart v. Bowman, 5 Pa. St. (5 Barr) 317; Perry v. Williamson (Tenn.), 47 S. W. 189; Kenney v. Norton, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 384; Potter v. Taylor, 6 Vt. 676; Richardson v. Dorr, 5 Vt. 9; Eaton v. Lyman, 30 Wis. 41; David v. Sabin, C. A. [1891] 1 Ch. 523; Rawle on Covenants for Title (5th ed.), sec. 70. See Chambers v. Smith, 183 Pa. 122; 38 Atl. 522.

Sayre v. Sheffield, L. I. & C. Co., 106 Ala. 440; 18 So. 101; Copeland v. 95 Griffin v. Reynolds, 17 Ala. 198; McAdory, 100 Ala. 553; 13 So. 545; Thompson v. Brazile, 65 Ark. 495; 47 Brooks v. Moody, 25 Ark. 452; Logan S. W. 299; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 v. Moulder, 1 Pike (Ark.), 313; 33 Conn. 497; Smoot v. Coffin, 4 Mackey Am. Dec. 338; Lawrence v. Mont- (D. C.), 407; Bostarck v. Williams, 36 gomery, 37 Cal. 183; Fisk v. Cathcart, Ill. 65; 85 Am. Dec. 385; Beasley v. 3 Colo. App. 374; 33 Pac. 1004; Davis Phillips, 20 Ind. App. 182; 5 N. E. v. Lyman, 6 Conn. 249; Mitchell v. 488; Simpson v. Hawkins, 1 Dana Warner, 5 Conn. 497; Durve v. Steph- | (Ky.), 303; Reed v. Pierce, 36 Me. ens, 101 Iowa, 358; 70 N. W. 610; 455; 58 Am. Dec. 761; Boulden v. Scoffins v. Grandstaff, 12 Kan. 467; Wood (Md. 1903), 53 Atl. 911; EmerReed v. Peirce, 36 Me. 455; 58 Am. son v. Proprietors, 1 Mass. 464; 2 Am. Dec. 761; Kramer v. Carter, 136 Dec. 34; Dyer v. Britton, 53 Miss. Mass. 504; Tufts v. Adams, 8 Pick. 270; Troxell v. Stevens, 57 Neb. 329; (Mass.) 547; Chapel v. Bull, 17 Mass. 77 N. W. 781; Hampton v. Webster, 220; Wyman v. Bullard, 12 Mass. 56 Neb. 628; 77 N. W. 50; Troxell v. 304; Streeper v. Abela, 59 Mo. App. Johnson, 52 Neb. 46; 71 N. W. 968; 485; Shelton v. Pease, 10 Mo. 473; Cheney v. Straube, 35 Neb. 521; 53 Bellamy v. Chambers, 50 Neb. 146; N. W. 479; Carter v. Denman, 23 N. 69 N. W. 770; Campbell v. McClure, J. L. 260; Kidder v. Bork, 67 N. Y. 45 Neb. 608; 63 N. W. 920; Morrison St. R. 377; 33 N. Y. Supp. 663; 12 v. Underwood, 20 N. H. 369; Demars Misc. 519; Vanderkarr v. Vanderkarr, v. Koehler, 62 N. J. L. 203; 41 Atl. 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 122; Ravenel v. 720, rev'g 60 N. J. L. 314; 38 Atl. 608; Ingram (N. C. 1902), 42 S. E. 967; Carter v. Denman, 23 N. J. L. 260; Johnson v. Nyce, 17 Ohio, 66; 49 Am. Stewart v. Drake, 9 N. J. L. 139; Dec. 444; Knepper v. Kurtz, 58 Pa. Huyck v. Andrews, 113 N. Y. 81; 21 | St. 481; Wight v. Gottschalk (Tenn.),

96

been a voluntary surrender to a dispossession under a superior title. So an entry, surrender or an eviction, actual or constructive, is necessary for a breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment."

284; Stewart v. Drake, 9 N. J. L. 138; Fowler v. Poling, Barb. (N. Y.) 165; Collis v. Cogbill, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 137.

§ 1802. From what time value of land computed-Continued. As stated in the preceding section certain covenants are broken as soon as made while others depend upon eviction, 48 S. W. 140; 43 L. R. A. 189; Mc- 553; 13 So. 545; Booth v. Starr, 5 Gregor v. Tabor (Tex. Civ. App. | Day (Conn.), 282; Hamilton v. Cutts, 1894), 26 S. W. 443; Rich v. Wait 4 Mass. 349; 3 Am. Dec. 222; LamChip. (Vt.) 68; Harr v. Shaffer (W.bert v. Estes, 99 Mo. 604; 13 S. W. Va. 1903), 43 S. E. 289; Northern P. R. Co. v. Montgomery (U. S. C. C. A. 9th C.), 56 U. S. App. 579; 30 C. C. A. 17; 86 Fed. 251; Barlow v. Delaney 97 McGary v. Hastings, 39 Cal. 360; (U. S. C. C. E. D. Mo.), 40 Fed. 97. 2 Am. Rep. 456; Levitzky v. Canning, See King v. Kilbrick, 58 Conn. 109, 33 Cal. 299; Beebe v. Swartwout, 3 559; 19 Atl. 519; Osborn v. Pritch- Gilm. (Ill.) 162; Boothby v. Hathaard, 104 Ga. 145; 30 S. E. 656; Her-way, 20 Me. 251; Sprague v. Baker, rington v. Clark, 56 Kan. 644; 44 17 Mass. 586; Moore v. Frankenfield, Pac. 624; Huff v. Cumberland Valley 25 Minn. 540; Troxell v. Johnson, 52 L. Co., 17 Ky. L. Rep. 213; 30 S. W. Neb. 46; 71 N. W. 968; Cheney v. 660; Wagner v. Finnegan, 65 Minn. Straube, 35 Neb. 521; 53 N. W. 479; 115; 67 N. W. 796; Britton v. Ruffin, Kelly v. Dutch Church, 2 Hill (N. 123 N. C. 67; 31 S. E. 271; McGrew v. Y.), 105; Webb v. Alexander, 7 Hermon, 164 Pa. 115; 30 Atl. 265; Wend. (N. Y.) 281; Whitbeck v. Price v. Hubbard, 8 S. D. 92; 65 N. Cook, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 483; Waldron W. 436; Pigeon River L. & L. Co. v. v. M'Carty, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 471; Mims (Tenn.), 48 S. W. 385; Jackson Howard v. Doolittle, 3 Duer (N. Y.), v. McAuley, 13 Wash. 298; 43 Pac. 464; Parker v. Dunn, 2 Jones L. (N. 413; Rawle on Covenants for Title C.) 203; Grist v. Hodges, 3 Dev. (N. (5th ed.), secs. 127, 128, 131, 132, 149, C.) 200. See Bedell v. Christy, 62 150. Examine Eversole v. Early, Kan. 760; 64 Pac. 629; rev❜g 61 Pac. (Iowa), 44 N. W. 897; Lambert v. 1095; Chambers v. Smith, 183 Pa. Estes, 99 Mo. 604; 13 S. W. 284; 122; 38 Atl. 522; Singleton v. Allen, Egan v. Martin, 71 Mo. App. 60; 2 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 166; Morgan v. Crouch v. Fowle, 9 N. H. 219; Kel- Henderson, 2 Wash. Ty. 367; Rawle logg v. Platt, 33 N. J. L. 328; Grannis on Covenants for Title (5th ed.), v. Clark, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 36; Biggins secs. 70, 131, 132, 149–151. That v. Bradley, 1 McCord (S. C.), 500; the rule is technical, see Trustees of Gass v. Sanger (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 Newburgh v. Galatian, 4 Cow. (N. S. W. 502; Grossbeck v. Harris, 82 Y.) 340. As to such a covenant beTex. 411; 19 S. W. 850; Ilsley v. Wil- ing broken by cancellation of entry son, 42 W. Va. 757; 26 S. E. 551; in United States land office, see GidPomfret v. Ricroft, 1 Saund. 322, note. dings v. Holter, 19 Mont. 263; 48 Pac. "Copeland v. McAdory, 100 Ala. 8.

actual or constructive for their breach, and this distinction should logically be of weight in determining the time from which the value of the land should be computed. We shall consider, however, first, certain particular decisions which fix the value of the land at a time other than that of eviction, and secondly, those which determine that the value at said time of eviction controls, although the weight of authority is opposed to this latter as a rule." Under the first division are the following adjudications or rulings: Only the value of the land, when purchased, with interest for so long as mesne profits are paid can be allowed for breach of a covenant of seisin and of quiet enjoyment. And the price of the land at the time of sale and not its value at the time the suit was commenced, nor its value at the time of the trial can be recovered for breach of warranty of the title.1 So for breach of a covenant of seisin the measure of damages will be the value of the land at the time of entering into the covenant, and if no consideration was actually paid, the value of the land with interest from the date of the deed determines the damages for breach of a covenant of seisin of a right to convey under a deed to the grantee directly from the owner, made at a third party's request, he having made the purchase and agreed to convey it to the grantee in satisfaction of a debt. The value of the land at the time of the conveyance, or of the delivery of the deed, is also recoverable for breach of the covenant of seisin. Or the value of the land at the time of the breach is recoverable for breach of a covenant to convey, and not the price which was fixed by the contract to be paid. So the value of timber to the grantee at

2

the time of the grant, for the use of his farm, admeasures the damages for breach of a covenant against incumbrances arising from a prior grant to cut said timber. There should, however, be deducted the value of the reservation to the grantor, and the value of the land at the time of the conveyance; or, at plaintiff's election, the amount actually received by defendant will be allowed for breach of a covenant of seisin, where the defendant conveyed to plaintiff at the request of one who had agreed to make the conveyance, but only a part of the consideration had been paid.' So the value of the land agreed upon at the time of the conveyance will be allowed for breach of warranty. Again, the time of the conveyance fixes the value of the land recoverable as damages for breach of the covenant of warranty. Such also is the rule, under such a covenant in a deed to assume a mortgage and protect the land from a sale thereunder, but the consideration mentioned evidences the value and not the amount of the mortgage.10 So the value of the land at the date of the covenant, with interest, measures the compensation for breach of a covenant to pay the value of the land from which there is an eviction." So the value at the time of the sale and not of the eviction governs under a covenant of warranty or to render lands of equal value. The value, however, of the land at the date of the covenant limits the damages, although there is a covenant of warranty and the value of the naked lot has been recovered in ejectment, based upon the time of recovery. Again, the value of the land at the time of the covenant broken, or date of the deed, determines the amount of compensation for breach of a covenant

12

Cathcart v. Bowman, 5 Pa. Jt. | N. Y. St. R. 795; 33 N. E. 376, aff'g 61 (5 Barr) 317. See Clark v. Zeigler, Hun, 427; 41 N. Y. St. R. 22; 16 N. 85 Ala. 154; 4 So. 669.

7 Staples v. Dean, 114 Mass. 125. Stebbins v. Wolf, 33 Kan. 765; 7 Pac. 542.

'Fawcett v. Woods, 5 Clarke (Iowa), 400; Cummins v. Kennedy, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 118; 14 Am. Dec. 45; Taylor v. Holter, 1 Mont. 688; Dalton v. Bowker, 8 Nev. 190; Cox v. Henry, 8 Casey (Pa.), 18.

Y. Supp. 240. See also as to consideration paid, evidencing the value, cases cited in last preceding note.

11 Bonta v. Miller, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 250. 12 Davis v. Hall, 2 Bibb (Ky.), 590.

13 Mason v. Kellogg, 38 Mich. 132. Value of land at date of covenant measures the damages. Mercantile Trust Co. v. South Park Res. Co., 15 Ky. L. Rep. 70; 22 S. W. 314; 94 Ky.

10 Jenks v. Quinn, 137 N. Y. 233; 50 | 271.

that lands are of a certain quality." The difference, however, between the value of the land at the time of the breach and the contract price is the measure of damages for breach of a covenant to convey free from incumbrances.15 The time of the breach, except in cases of fraud, fixes the damages for breach of a covenant of warranty of title, and the value of the land at the time the title thereto was lost through an attachment against the vendor for breach of a covenant against incumbrances, or the breach of a guaranty to cancel incumbrances within a certain period of time."

16

§ 1803. Same subject continued-Value at time of eviction. It has been determined in a number of jurisdictions that one of the legal elements of damages for breach of a covenant of warranty is the value of the land at the time of eviction.18 The rule that the time of eviction governs has been applied where the covenant is broken by subsequent levy; where a mortgage is foreclosed; where the grantee is ousted by the mortgagee, although if such value exceeds the amount due on the mortgage, then that amount admeasures the recovery; such value at such date is also recoverable where rent has accumulated, against the liability for which the grantor has covenanted. If the covenantee has never had possession

21

22

14 Estill v. Blakemore, Bruner's | ers, 1 Bay (S. C.), 265; Liber v. ParCol. Cas. 100; Fed. Cas. No. 4,538.

sons, 1 Bay (S. C.), 19. (But see subsequent sections herein, as to purchase price or consideration in this state.) Keeler v. Wood, 30 Vt. 242; Pitkin v. Leavitt, 13 Vt. 379; Drury v. Shumway, D. Chip. (Vt.) 110; 1 Am. Dec.

17 Manahan v. Smith, 19 Ohio St. 704. It is not necessary to prove an 384.

18 Butler v. Barnes, 61 Conn. 399; 24 Atl. 328; Sterling v. Peet, 14 Conn. 245; Horsford v. Wright, Kirby (Conn.), 3; Williamson v. Williamson, 71 Me. 442; Hardy v. Nelson, 27 Me. 525; Swett v. Patrick, 12 Me. 1;| Cushman v. Blanchard, 2 Greenlf. (Me.) 266; Cecconi v. Rodden, 147 Mass. 164; 16 N. E. 749; Wyman v. Baldwin, 12 Mass. 304; Bigelow v. Jones, 4 Mass. 512; Guerard v. Riv-|

eviction. Park v. Bates, 12 Vt. 381; 36 Am. Dec. 347. The weight of authority is declared to be to the contrary. See sections post, herein, as to purchase price, etc. Rawle on Covenants for Title (5th ed.), sec. 164.

19 Bigelow v. Jones, 4 Mass. 512. 20 Elder v. True, 32 Mo. 104. 21 White v. Whitney, 3 Met. (Mass.) 81.

22 Keith v. Day, 15 Vt. 660.