77. Flynn v. White Breast Coal & Min. Co., 72 Iowa, 738, 32 N. W. 471; Lamb v. Danforth, 59 Me. 324, 8 Am. Rep. 426; Harrington v. Bean, 89 Me. 470, 36 Atl. 986; Smith v. Richards, 155 Mass. 79, 28 N. E. 1132; Scriver v. Smith, 100 N. Y. 471, 53 Am. Rep. 224, 3 N. E. 675; Rea v. Minkler, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 196; Wilson v. Cochran, 46 Pa. 229. The case of Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 497, in which it was decided that the exercise of a right to divert water from a stream on the land did not involve a breach of the covenant, has been criticized. See Wilson v. Cochran, 46 Pa. 233; Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 152 note.

78. Helton v. Asher, 135 Ky. 751, 123 S. W. 285; Kramer v. Carter, 136 Mass. 504.

The successful assertion of the easement by suit has been regarded as involving a breach of the covenant. Ailing v. Bur-lock, 46 Conn. 504; Ensign v. Colt, 75 Conn. Ill, 52 Atl. 829. 946; Butt v. Riffe, 78 Ky. 352: Hymes v. Estey, 116 N. Y. 501. 15 Am. St. Rep. 421, 22 N. E. 1087.

79. Downs v. Nally, 161 Ky. 432, 170 S. W. 1193; Richstein v. Welch, 197 Mass. 224, 83 N. E. 417; Scheible v. Slagle. 89 Ind. 323; Bowling v. Burton, 101 N. C. 176, 2 L. R. A. 285, 7 S. E. 701; Peters v. Grubb, 21 Pa. 455; Adams v. Conover, 87 N. Y. 422.

Resident80 or is about to remove his property from the state.81 An eviction is obviously not necessary in any state in which the covenant of warranty is regarded as including that against incumbrances.82

To constitute an actual eviction under paramount title the dispossession need not be under legal process,83 nor need there be any judicial decision in favor of the holder of the paramount title,84 it being sufficient that the claim is actually asserted,85 that it is

80. Walker v. Robinson, 163 Ky. 618, 174 S. W. 503.

81. , Knight's Adm'r v. Schroad-er, 148 Ky. 610, 147 S. W. 378.

82. Moore v. Lanham. 3 Hill (S. C.) 304; Jeter v. Glenn, 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 374; Van Wagner v. Van Nostrand, 19 Iowa, 422; Bullard v. Hopkins, 128 Iowa, 703, 105 N. W. 197 (semble); Taylor v. Allen, 60 Pa. Super Ct. 503.

83. Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 132: Foster v. Pierson, 4 Term R. 617: Mcgary v. Hastings, 39 Cal. 360, 2 Am. Rep 456; Green v. Irving, 54 Miss. 450. 28 Am. Rep. 360; Greenvault v. Davis, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 645; Hodges v. Latham, 98 N. C. 239, 2 Am. St. Rep. 333, 3 S. E. 495.

84. Dugger v. Oglesby, 99 111. 405; Mason v. Cooksey, 51 Ind. 519; Hamilton v. Cutts, 4 Mass. 350, 3 Am. Dec. 222.

85. There can be no eviction under paramount title unless such title is actually asserted, and consequently, at least in the ordinary case, no breach of the covenant occurs if the covenantee yields possession to the holder of a paramount title, who has not asserted his title. Hester v. Hunnicutt, 104 Ala. 282, 16 So. 162; Moore v. Vail, 17 111. 185;

Axtel v. Chase, 83 Ind. 546; Green v. Irving, 54 Miss. 450, 28 Am. Rep. 360; Ogden v. Ball, 40 Minn. 94, 41 N. W. 453; Morgan v. Hannibal R. Co., 63 Mo. 129; Githens v. Barnhill - (Mo. App.) - 184 S. W. 145; Mcgrew v. Harmon, 164 Pa. St. 115, 30 Atl. 265, 268; Leddy v. Enos, 6 Wash. 247, 33 Pac. 508, 34 Pac. 665.

To the rule requiring an assertion of the adverse claim an exception has been recognized when the paramount title was in the United States. Dillahunty v. Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co., 59 Ark. 629, 27 S. W. 1002, 28 S. W. 657; Crawford County Bank v. Baker, 95 Ark. 438, 130 S. W. 556; Mcgary v. Hastings, 39 Cal. 367, 2 Am. Rep. 456; Harrington v. Clark, 56 Kan. 644, 44 Pac. 624; Pevey v. Jones, 71 Miss. 627, 42 Am. St. Rep. 486, 16 So. 252.

The cancellation of an entry or patent by the land office has been regarded as a sufficient assertion of the government title. Butler v. Watts, 13 La. Ann. 390; Efta v. Swanson, 115 Minn. 373, 132 N. W. 335, Giddings v. Hol-ter, 19 Mont. 263, 48 Pac. 8; Jennings v. Kiernan, 35 Ore. 349. 55 Pac. 443, 56 Pac. 72 (suit valid,86 and that the covenantee yields thereto.87

A constructive eviction, as distinguished from an actual one, involving a breach of the covenant, occurs when, upon the assertion of a paramount title, the covenantee, instead of yielding possession to the hostile claimant, buys in such title, or takes a lease from the holder thereof.88 The covenantee is, however, under no obligation to the covenantor thus to arrive at a settlement with the paramount owner.89 Somewhat similar to the case of a purchase of the paramount to annul patent). And dealing with the land as state land has been regarded as sufficient assertion of a paramount title in the state. Green v. Irving, 54 Miss. 450; Brown v. Allen, 57 Hun (N. Y.) 219, 10 N. Y. Supp. 714.

86. See Rawle, Covenants Sec. 136, and cases cited ante, this section, note 60.

87. Gunter v. Williams, 40 Ala. 561; Clements v. Collins, 59 Ga. 124; Axtel v. Chase, 83 Ind. 546; Hamilton v. Cutts, 4 Mass. 350, 3 Am. Dec. 222; Kramer v. Carter. 136 Mass. 504; Allis v. Nininger, 25 Minn. 525; Green v. Irving, 54 Miss. 450, 28 Am. Rep. 337; Lambert v. Estes, 99 Mo. 604, 13 S. W. 284; Cheney v. Straube, 35 Neb. 521, 53 N. W. 479; Cornish v. Capron, 136 N. Y. 232, 32 N. E. 773; Jenks v. Quinn, 137 N. Y. 223, 33 N. E. 376; Brown v. Corson, 16 Ore. 388, 19 Pac 66, 21 Pac. 47; Wilson v. Cochran, 46 Pa. St. 229; Hebert v. Handy, 29 R. I. 543, 72 Atl. 1102.

88. Dillahunty v. Little Rock & Ft. S, Ry. Co., 59 Ark. 699, 27 S. W. 1002, 28 S. W. 657; Mcgary v. Hastings, 39 Cal. 360, 2 Am. Rep. 456; Hayden v. Patterson,

39 Colo. 15, 88 Pac. 437; Joyner v. Smith, 132 Ga. 779, 65 S. E. 68; Mcconnell v. Downs, 48 111. 271; Beasley v. Phillips, 20 Ind. App. 182; Smith v. Keeley, 146 Iowa, 660, 125 N. W. 669; Sprague v. Baker, 17 Mass. 590; Brooks v. Mohl, 104 Minn. 404, 116 N. W. 931; Loomis v. Bedel, 11 N. H. 74; Hodges v. Latham, 98 N. C. 239, 2 Am. St. Rep. 333, 3 S. E. 495; Pee Dee Naval Stores Co. v. Hamer, 92 S. C. 423, 75 S. E. 695; Morrow v. Baird, 114 Tenn. 552, 86 S. W. 1079; Clark v. Mumford, 62 Tex. 531; Morgan v. Haley, 107 Va. 331, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 732, 122 Am. St. Rep. 846, 13 Ann. Cas. 204, 58 S. E. 564; See Tucker v. Cooney, 34 Hun. (N. Y.) 227, 100 N. Y. 719; Stewart v. Drake, 9 N. J. L. 139. In one or two states a. different view has been taken. Huff v. Cumberland Valley Land Co. 17 Ky. L. Rep. 213, 30 S. W. 660; Dyer v. Britton, 53 Miss. 270. Compare Swinney v. Cock-rell, 86 Miss. 318, 38 So. 353.