Assuming that the time has arrived when the plaintiff has become entitled to substantial damages, the measure of damages logically should be the amount which would put the plaintiff in as good a position as he would have been in had the warranty been kept. In fact, however, in most States he is allowed to recover for total loss of the property only the consideration •Pate p. Mitchell, 23 Ark. 590, 79 Am. Dec. 114; Reed v. Hamilton, 18 Ind. 476; Nosier p. Hunt, 18 Iowa, 212; Foshay p. Shafer, 116 la. 302, 89 N. W. 1106; O'Meara p. McDaniel, 49 Kan. 665, 31 Pac. 303; Sable p. Brockmeier, 45 Miim. 248, 47 N. W. 794; Cockrell v. Proctor, 65 Mo. 41; Eagan p. Martin, 81 Mo. App. 676; Webb p. Wheeler, 80 Neb. 438, 114 N. W. 636, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178; Morrison p. Underwood, 20 N. H. 369; Werner p. Wheeler, 142 N. Y. App. D. 358, 127 N. Y. S. 158; Bowne p. Woloott, 1 N. Dak. 415, 48 N. W. 336; McLennan p. Prentice, 85 Wk 427, 55 N. W. 764. But in Parkinson p. Woulds, 125 Mich. 325, 84 N. W. 292, though the grantee's possession had not been disturbed he was allowed to recover the consideration that he had paid.

60 Black p. Coan, 48 Ind. 385; Har-wood p. Lee, 85 la. 622, 52 N. W. 521; Copeland p. Copeland, 30 Me. 446; WDlson p. Willson, 25 N. H. 229, 57

Am. Dec. 320; Be Hanlin's Est., 133 Wis. 140, 113 N. W. 411, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1189, 126 Am. St. Rep. 938.

61 See for instance in regard to an easement Turner p. Moon, [1901] 2 Ch. 825; Copeland p. McAdory, 100 Ala. 553, 13 So. 545; Brantley p. Johnson, 102 Ga. 850, 29 S. E. 486; Richmond p. Ames, 164 Mass. 467, 41 N. E. 671.

62 Seeinfra, Sec.1408.

63 Oliver p. Bush, 125 Ala. 534, 27 So. 923; Mitchell p. Warner, 5 Conn. 497; McMullcn p. Butler, 117 Ga. 845, 45 S. E. 258; Brady p. Spurck, 27 111. 478; Beasley p. Phillips, 20 Ind. App. 182, 50 N. E. 488; Callahan p. Goldman, 216 Mass. 238, 103 N. E. 689; Allis p. Nininger, 25 Minn. 525; Dyer p. Britton, 53 Miss. 270; Merrill p. Suing, 66 Neb. 404, 92 N. W. 618; Kellog p. Pratt, 33 N. J. L. 328; Mead p. Stackpole, 40 Hun, 473; Wiggins p. Pender, 132 N. C. 628, 44 S. E. 362, 61 L. R. A. 772; King p. Kerr, 5 Ohio, 154, 22 Am. Dec. 777; which he paid for it, with interest.64 And where the action is not by the immediate vendee of the warrantor but by a subsequent purchaser the plaintiff's recovery is generally restricted to the amount received by the warrantor with interest.65 In a few jurisdictions a plaintiff is allowed the theoretically correct damages of the value of the land including any improvements upon it at the time of the eviction.66 Where the plaintiff has been evicted from part of the land his damages under the prevailing rule are such a proportion of the consideration as the value of the land which the plaintiff has lost bears to the total value of the premises.67 But jurisdictions which allow Morrow v. Baird, 114 Tenn. 552, 86 S. W. 1079; Boyd v. Bartlett, 36 Vt. 9; Marbury v. Thornton, 82 Va. 702, 1 S. E. 909; Harr v. Shaffer, 52 W. Va. 207, 43 S. E. 89.

64 Irwin v. Maple, 252 Fed. 10, 164 C. C. A. 122 (Ohio); Prestwood v. McGowin, 128 Ala. 267, 274, 29 So. 386, 86 Am. St. Rep. 136; McCormick v. Marcy, 165 Gal. 386, 132 Pao. 449; Taylor v. Allen, 131 Ga. 416, 62 S. E. 291; Wood v. Kingston Coal Co., 48 11I. 356, 95 Am. Dec. 554; Rhea v. Swain, 122 Ind. 272, 22 N. E. 1000, 23 N. E. 776; Boioe v. Coffeen, 158 la. 705, 138 N. W. 857; Stebbins t>. Wolf, 33 Kans. 765, 7 Pac. 542; Arbuthnot v. Big Pine Lumber Co., 134 La. 529, 64 So. 401; Crisfield v. Storr, 36 Md. 129, 150, 11 Am. Rep. 480; Webb v. Holt, 113 Mich. 338, 71 N. W. 637; Wagner v. Finnegan, 54 Minn, 251, 55 N. W. 1129; Allen r. Miller, 99 Miss. 75, 54 So. 731; Coleman v. Lucksinger, 224 Mo. 1, 123 S. W. 441, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 934; Diggs v. Henson, 181 Mo. App. 34, 163 S. W. 565; Holmes v. Seaman, 72 Neb. 300, 100 N. W. 417, 101 N. W. 1030; Hoffman ». Bosch, 18 Nev. 360, 4 Pac. 703; Winnipiseogee P. Co. v. Eaton, 65 N. H. 13, 18 Ati. 171; Morris v. Rowan, 17 N. J. L. 304; Hunt v. Hay, 156 N. Y. App. D. 138, 140 N. Y. S. 1070; Campbell v. Bentley, 159 N. Y. App. D. 522, 145 N. Y. Sec.. 92; Ramsey v. Wallace, 100 N. C. 75, 83, 6 S. E. 638; Wade v. Comstock, 11 Oh. St. 71; Wetsell 9. Richcreek, 53 Ohio St. 62, 73, 40 N. E. 1004; Rash v. Jenne, 26 Ore. 169, 37 Pac. 538; Allison v. Montgomery, 107 Pa. 455; Lawranoe v. Robertson, 10 S. C. S; Mengel Ac. Co. v. Ferguson, 124 Tenn. 433, 137 S. W. 101; Brown v. Hearon, 66 Tex. 63, 17 S. W. 395; Coleman v. Luetcke (Tex. Civ. App.), 164 S. W. 1117; Conrad v. Effinger, 87 Va. 59,12 S. E. 2, 24 Am. St. Rep. 646; Butcher v. Peterson, 26 W. Va. 447,53 Am. Rep. 89; Patterson v. Cappon, 125 Wis. 198, 102 N. W. 1083.

65 Sutherland, Damages, Sec.614; and see cases in the preceding note.

66 Jenkins v. Jones, 9 Q. B. D. 128; Butler p. Barnes, 61 Conn. 399, 24 AtL 328; Harrington v. Bean, 89 Me. 470, 36 Atl. 986; Cecconi v. Rodden, 147 Mass. 164, 16 N. E. 749; Farwell v. Bean, 82 Vt. 172, 72 Ail. 731.

67 Griffin v. Reynolds, 17 How. 609, 15 L. Ed. 229; Alexander v. Bridgford, 59 Art. 195, 27 S. W. 69; Seyfried v. Knoblauch, 44 Colo. 86, 96 Pac. 993; Tone v. Wilson, 81 111. 529; McNally v. White, 154 Ind. 163, 172, 64 N. E. 794, 56 N. E. 214; Mischke v. Baughn, 52 la. 528, 3 N. W. 543; Southern W. M. & C. Co. v. Davenport, 60 La. Ann. 505, 23 So. 448; Dubay v. Kelly, 137 Mich. 345, 100 N. W. 677; Winnipiseogee P. Co. v. Eaton, 65 N. H. 13, 18 Atl. 171; Lemly v. Mia, 146 N. C.

for total eviction the value of the land at the time of eviction naturally allow for partial eviction the value of that part of the land of which the plaintiff has been deprived.68