89. Brawley v. Copelin. 106 Ark. 256, 153 S. W. 101; Miller v. Halsey, 14 N. J. L. 48; Olmstead v. Rawson, 188 N. Y. 517, 81 N. E. 456; Parker v. Crainton, 143 title by the covenantee is that of the extinguishment by him of a paramount lien,90 or the purchase by him of the property upon a sale under such lien.91

Occasionally a mere adjudication that another's title is superior to that of the covenantee has been regarded as involving a breach of the covenant of warranty, without reference to whether the covenantee still retains the possession.92 Such a view appears to involve, to some extent, a departure from the requirement of eviction in order to effect a breach of the covenant,93 and might well, perhaps, be confined to cases in which the land, at the time of the adjudication, is vacant and unoccupied.94 Occasionally there has been considered to be a breach of the covenant by reason of an outstanding legal title when the covega. 421, 85 S. E. 338; Rawle, Covenants Sec., 181.

90. Bemis v. Smith, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 194; Estabrook v. Smith, 6 Gray (Mass.) 572, 66 Am. Dec. 443; Jackson v. Hanna, 8 Jones Law, (53 N. C.) 188; Welsh v. Kibler, 5 S. C. 405; Kenney v. Norton, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 384; Mccrillis v. Thomas 110 Mo. App. 699, 85 S. W. 673.

91. Talbott v. Donaldson, 71 Kan. 483, 80 Pac. 981; Whitney v. Dinsmore, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 124; Hill v. Bacon, 110 Mass. 387; Cowdrey v. Coit, 44 N. Y. 382, 4 Am. Rep. 690; Brown v. Dins-more. 12 Pa. 372.

It has been held that the covenantee may pay the taxes on the property when due, and assert a breach of the covenant. Swinney v. Cockrell. 86 Miss. 318, 38 So. 353. But this is open to question so long as there has been no claim made against the property on account of the taxes. Leddy v. Enos, 6 Wash. 247, 33 Par.

508, 34 Pac. 665.

92. Cox v. Bradford, 101 Ark. 302, 142 S. W. 172; Hayden v. Patterson, 39 Colo. 15, 88 Pac. 437; Wilber v. Buchanan, 85 Ind. 42; Wright v. Nipple, 92 Ind. 310; Sarrls v. Beckman, 55 Ind. App. 638, 104 N. E. 598; Waggener v. Howsley's Adm'r, 64 Ky. 113, 175 S. W. 4; Hubbard v. Stanaford, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1044, 100 S. W. 232; Boyd v. Bartlett, 36 Vt. 9; Black v. Barto, 65 Wash. 502, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 846, 118 Pac. Pac. 623.

93. That a mere adjudication is not sufficient, see Wagner v. Finnegan, 54 Minn. 251, 55 N. W. 1129; Hoy v. Taliaferro, 8 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 727; Real v. Hollister, 20 Neb. 112, 29 N. W. 189; Kerr v. Shaw, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 236; Ravenel v. Ingram, 131 N. C. 549, 42 S. E. 967; Paul v. Witman, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 407.

94. See Wagner v. Finnegan, 54 Minn. 25. 55 N. W. 1129; St. John v. Palmer, 5 Hill (N. Y.) nantee lias obtained a decree in equity cancelling such title in his favor.95

- Proof of paramount title. One alleging a breach of the covenant by reason of an eviction or assertion of claim by a third person has the burden of showing that such person had a paramount title.96 But "it has come to be well settled in most if not all of the United States that, in general, upon suit being brought upon a paramount claim against one who is entitled to the benefit of any of the covenants for title, and more particularly it would seem of the covenant of warranty, he can, by giving proper notice of the action to the party bound by the covenants and requiring him to defend it, relieve himself from the burden of being obliged afterward to prove, in the action on the covenants, the validity of the title of the adverse claim-ant,"97 and occasionally a judgment thus recognizing

599, and ante, this section, note 75.

95. Smith v. Keeley, 146 Iowa, 660, 135 N. W. 669; Mackenzie v. Clement, - (Mo. App) - 129 S. W. 730; Lane v. Fury, 31 Ohio St. 574.

96. Copeland v. Mcadory, 100 Ala. 553, 13 So. 545; Tuggle v. Hamilton, 100 Ga. 292, 27 S. E. 987; Moore v. Vail, 17 111. 190; Crance v. Collenbaugh, 47 Ind. 256; George v. Putney, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 355, 50 Am. Dec. 788; Lambert v. Estes, 99 Mo. 604, 13 S. W. 284; Snyder v. Jennings, 15 Neb. 372, 19 N. W. 501; Stone v. Hooker, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 157; Cobb v. Klosterman, 58 Ore. 211, 114 Pac. 96; Callis v. Cogbill, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 137; West-rope v. Chambers, 51 Tex. 178; Mckillop v. Post, 82 Vt. 403, 74 Atl. 78.

The burden of showing the validity of the asserted paramount title Is upon the covenantee who yields thereto. Ever-sole v. Early, 80 Iowa, 601, 44 N. W. 897; Rawle Covenants Sec., 136; Tiffany, Landlord & Tenant p. 1299.

97. Rawle, Covenants Sec. 117. See Carpenter v. Carpenter, 88 Ark. 169, 113 S. W. 1032; Mc-cormick v. Marcy, 165 Cal. 386, 132 Pac. 449; Taylor v. Allen, 131 Ga. 416, 62 S. E. 291; Harding v. Sucher, 261 111. 284, 103 N. E. 1019; Olmstead v. Rawson, 188 N. Y. 517, 81 N. E. 456;Stone-braker v. Ault, - Okla. - 158 Pac. 570; Samson v. Zimmerman, 73 Kan. 654, 85 Pac. 757; Elliott v. Saufley, 89 Ky. 52, 11 S. W. 200; Parnsworth v. Kimball, 112 Me. 238, 91 Atl. 954; Boyle v. Edwards, 114 Mass. 375; Cummings v. Harrison, 57 Miss. 275; Sachse v. Loeb, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 536, the supremacy of another's title has been regarded as conclusive upon the covenantor when rendered in a suit brought not by such other against the covenantee, but by the covenantee against such other, the covenantor being notified to appear and prosecute the suit.98 The notice need not, it seems, be in writing." It has sometimes been regarded as necessary that the notice include or be accompanied by a request that the covenantor defend the action,1 but such a requirement has not always been recognized.2 Obviously the notice must be given with sufficient promptitude to enable the covenantor to prepare his defense.3 If no notice of the action is given to the covenantor, a judgment therein against him is not even prima facie evidence of the paramount character of the title of the party in favor of whom it was rendered,4 but apart from any question

101 S. W. 450; Farwell v. Bean, 82 Vt. 172, 72 Atl. 731. So in the case of notice to the covenantor's heir, afterwards sued on the covenant. Farnsworth v. Kimball, 112 Me. 238, 91 Atl. 954.

98. Gragg v. Richardson, 25 Ga. 570, 71 Am. Dec. 190; Sarrls v. Beckman, 55 Ind. App. 638, 104 N. E. 598; Hubbard v. Stanaford, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1044, 100 S. W. 232; Dalton v. Bowker, 8 Nev. 191; White v. Williams, 13 Tex. 258; Pitkin v. Leavitt, 13 Vt. 379.

99. Sarrls v. Beckman, 55 Ind. App. 638, 104 N. E. 598; Rich-stein v Welch, 197 Mass. 224, 83 N. E. 417; Cummings v. Harrison. 57 Miss. 275; Walton v. Campbell, 51 Neb. 788, 71 N. W. 737; Miner v. Clark, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 426. Contra, Mason v. Kellogg, 38 Mich. 132, approved in Rawle. Covenants, Sec. 119.

1. Pence v. Rhonemus, 58 Ind. App. 268, 108 N. E. 129; Wheelock v. Overshiner, 110 Mo. 100, 19 S. W. 640; Paul v. Witman, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 409; Clark v. Mum-ford, 62 Tex. 532; Anderson v. Bigelow, 16 Wash. 198, 47 Pac. 426. That the convenantor must be "tendered the opportunity to take upon himself the defense" is asserted in Richstein v. Welch, 197 Mass. 224, 83 N. E. 417.

2. Cummings v. Harrison, 57 Miss. 275; Jones v. Balsley, 154 N. Car. 61, 69 S. E. 827; 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.

3. Fassler v. Streit, 100 Neb. 722, 161 N. W. 172; Morette v. Bostwick. 127 N. Y. App. Div. 701, 111 N. Y. Supp. 1021; Middle-ton v. Thompson, 1 Speers L. (S. Car.) 67; Somers v. Schmidt, 24 Wis. 421, 1 Am. Rep. 191.

4. Rawle, Covenants Sec., 123 and cases cited. Osbum v. Pritch-ard, 104 Ga. 145. 30 S. E. 656;

Of the land at the time of the sale, with a view to which the covenant was made.8 Adopting this measure of damages in case the breach is as to part of the premises only, the recovery is a part of the consideration, proportioned to the value of such part.9 And if the estate which passes is less than that purported to be conveyed, the amount recoverable is the consideration paid less the value of the estate which actually passes.10 Occasionally the view has been asserted that the covenantee can recover only nominal damages on account of a breach of the covenant for seisin, if he has in no way been disturbed in his possession of the land.11 In the great majority of cases, however, the fact that the grantee is or is not still in possession is not re8. Mather v. Stokely, 218 Fed. 764, 134 C. C. A. 442; Logan v. Moulder, 1 Ark. 313, 33 Am. Dec. 338; Mitchell v. Hazen, 4 Conn. 516, 10 Am. Dec. 169; King v. Gilson's Adm'x, 32 111. 348, 83 Am. Dec. 269; Shorthill v. Ferguson, 44 Iowa, 249; Cummins v. Kennedy, 3 Litt (Ky.) 118, 14 Am. Dec. 45; Marston v. Hobbs, 2 Mass. 433, 3 Am. Dec. 61; Nichols v. Walter, 8 Mass. 243; Willson v. Willson, 25 N. H. 229, 57 Am. Dec. 320; Pitcher v. Livingston, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 1; Crowell v. Jones, 67 N. C. 386, 83 S. E. 551; Backus' Admr's v. Mccoy, 3 Ohio, 211. 17 Am. Dec. 585; Conklin v. Hancock, 67 Ohio St. 455, 66 N. E. 518; Bender v. Fromberger, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 442; Park v. Cheek, 4 Cold. (Tenn.) 20; Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Mundy, 110 Va. 422, 66 S. E. 61.

1700 Read Property. [Sec.Sec. 454, 455 of notice the covenantor is bound by the judgment it he is a party thereto.5