65. Crosse v. Young, 2 Show. 425; Avery v. Dougherty, 102 Ind. 443, 52 Am. Rep. 680, 2 N. E. 123. See 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten., p. 528.

66. 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Ten. p. 529.

67. Madden v. Caldwell Land Co., 16 Idaho, 59, 21 L. R. A. N. S. 332, 100 Pac. 358; Curtis v. Deering, 12 Me. 499; Williamson v. Williamson, 71 Me. 442; Eaton v. Hopkins, 71 Fla. 615, 71 So. 922; Jones v. Warner, 81 I11. 343; Lukens v. Nicholson, 4 Phila.

(Pa.) 22 Contra, Wade v. Corn-stock, 11 Ohio St. 71 See, also, as opposed to the view of these cases, dictum of Sharswood, J., in Scott v. Scott, 70 Pa. 244, and Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 128.

The covenantor has even been held liable on account of an entry upon the covenantee made by the grantee in a prior conveyance executed by the covenantor, though by reason of the prior record of the later conveyance the entry was wrongful. Thomas v. West & Wheeler, C4 title in another, an eviction of the covenantee by such other is ordinarily necessary.68 Consequently the mere existence of a lien on the land, such as a mortgage, involves no breach of the covenant,69 though a breach may occur as a result of the enforcement of the lien, followed by an eviction by the person to whom the ownership of the land passes as a result of such enforcement.70 And the existence of an inchoate dower right does not involve a breach,71 though a breach may result from the enforcement of a right of dower

Wash. 344, 116 Pac. 1076, disapproving Lamb v. Willis, 125 App. Div. 183, 109 N. Y. Supp. 75.

68. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 131; Gulf Coal & Coke Co. v. Mus-grove, 195 Ala. 219, 70 So. 179; Mccormick v. Marcy, 165 Cal. 386, 132 Pac. 449; Brooks v. Winkles, 139 Ga. 732, 78 S. E. 129; Grant v. Mcarthur's Ex'r, 153 Ky. 356, 155 S. W. 732; Boulden v. Wood, 96 Md. 332, 53 Atl. 911; Coopwood v. Mccand-less, 99 Miss. 364, 54 So. 1007; Aiple-hemmelman Real Estate Co. v. Spelbrink, 211 Mo. 671, 111 S. W. 480; Troxell v. Johnson, 52 Neb. 46, 71 N. W. 968; Smith v. Wahl, 88 N. J. 623, 97 Atl. 261; Scriver v. Smith, 100 N. Y. 471, 53 Am. Rep. 224, 3 N. E. 675; Werner v. Wheeler, 142 N. Y. App. Div. 358, 127 N. Y. Supp. 158; Richmond Cedar Works v. J. L. Roper Lumber Co., 161 N. C. 603, 77 S. E. 770; Rancho Bonito Land & Live Stock Co. v. North, 92 Tex. 72, 45 S. W. 994; Lennig v. Harrisonburg Land & Improvement Co., 107 Va. 458, 59 S. E. 400; Mckinley Land Co. v. Maynor, 76 W. Va. 156, 85 S. E. 79; Durbin v. Shenners, 133 Wis. 134, 113 N. W. 421.

69. King v. Killbride, 58 Conn. 109; Clark v. Lineberger, 44 Ind. 223; Kimberlin v. Templeton, 55 Ind. App. 155, 102 N. E. 160; Foster v. Woodward, 141 Mass. 160, 6 N. E. 853; Koenig v. Branson, 73 Mo. 634; Marbury v. Thornton, 82 Va. 702, 1 S. E. 909; Leddy v. Enos, 6 Wash. 247, 33 Pac. 508, 34 Pac. 665; Durbin v. Shenners, 133 Wis. 134, 131 N. W. 421.

70. Collier v. Cowger, 52 Ark. 322, 6 L. R. A. 107, 12 S. W. 702; King v. Kilbride, 58 Conn. 109; Clark v. Lineberger, 44 Ind. 223; Congregation of Sisters of Perpetual Adoration v. Jane, 110 Miss. 612, 70 So. 818; Cheney v. Straube, 35 Neb. 521, 53 N. W. 479; Stewart v. Drake, 9 N. J. L. 139; Jenks v. Quinn, 137 N. Y. 223, 33 N. E. 376; Smith v. Dixon, 27 Ohio St. 471; Williams v. O'donnell, 225 Pa. 321, 74 Atl. 205; Harr v. Shaffer, 52 W. Va. 207, 43 S. E. 89; Jackson v. Mcauley, 13 Wash. 298, 43 Pac. 41.

71. Tierney v. Whiting, 2 Colo. 620; Bostwick v. Williams, 36 111. 65, 85 Am. Dec. 385; Aiple-hemmelman Real Estate Co. v.

In the case of absolutely unoccupied land, the mere assertion of a paramount title, without the taking of actual possession by the holder thereof, might be regarded as so indicative of an intention to exclude the covenantee as to involve a breach of the covenant.73 Another case of a breach of the covenant

Spelbrink, 211 Mo. 671, 111 S. W. 480.

72. Bostwick v. Williams, 36 111. 65, 85 Am. Dec. 385; Davis v. Logan, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 341; Maguire v. Riggin, 44 Mo. 512; Mcalpin v. Woodruff, 1 Disn. 339,12 Ohio Dec. 658; Lewis v. Lewis, 5 Rich. L. (S. C.) 12; Welsh v. Kibler, 5 S. C. 405.

73. Cloake v. Hooper, Freem. 122; Peters v. Bowman, 98 U. S. 56, 25 L. Ed. 91; Banks v. Whitehead, 7 Ala. 83; Moore v. Vail, 17 111. 185; Cummins v. Kennedy, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 118, 14 Am. Dec. 45; Witty v. Hightower, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 478; Murphy v. Price, 48 Mo. 247; Heyn v. Ohman, 42 Neb. 693, 60

N. W. 952; Shattuck v. Lamb, 65 N. Y. 499, 22 Am. Rep. 656; Hunt v. Hay, 214 N Y.. 578. 108 N. E. 851; Fishel v. Browning, 145 N. C. 71, 58 S. E. 759; Mc-hargue v. Calchina, 78 Ore. 326, 153 Pac. 99; New York & Cleveland Gas Co. v. Graham, 226 Pa. 348, 75 Atl. 657; Lennig v. Harrisonburg Land & Improvement Co., 107 Va. 458, 59 S. E. 400; Mcconaughey v. Bennett's Ex'rs, 50 W. Va. 172, 40 S. E. 540.

74. St. John v. Palmer, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 599; Winslow v. Mccall, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 541; Hodges v. Latham, 98 N. C. 239, 2 Am. St. Rep. 333, 3 S. E. 495.

75. See Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 140; Jennings v. Kiernan, 35 Ore.

1700 Bead Property. [Sec. 453 without an eviction may occur in the case of an easement outstanding in a third person.76 The exercise of such an easement,77 and occasionally, perhaps, the mere assertion of the right to exercise it,78 has been regarded as involving a breach of the covenant. In a few cases, where the conveyance of land was regarded, by reason of the use of the expression "appurtenances," or otherwise, as intended to include an easement in the adjoining land, a failure of title to such easement has been held to involve a breach of the covenant.79

In one state it has been said that an eviction is unnecessarv if the covenantor is insolvent or a non

349, 55 Pac. 443, 56 Pac. 72. In Sel-don v. Dudley E. Jones Co., 74 Ark. 348, 85 S. W. 778, it is even asserted that in the case of wild and unimproved land, the mere existence of a paramount title involves a breach.

76. Occasionally it has been decided, apparently, that the existence of an easement does not involve a breach of the covenant. Diseker v. Eau Claire Land & Imp. Co., 86 S. C. 281, 68 S. E. 529; Cummings v. Hamrick, 74 W. Va. 406, 82 S. E. 44.