In an action for breach of the covenant for seisin, the measure of damages is ordinarily the amount of the consideration paid by the grantee, usually with interest, such consideration being presumably the value

Council Imp. Co. v. Pacific & Idaho Northern Land & Improvement Co., 29 Idaho 113, 57 Pac. 258; Sisk v. Woodruff, 15 111. 15; Dalton v. Bowker, 8 Nev. 190; Baumgartner v. Chipman, 30 Utah, 466, 86 Pac. 411; Anderson v. Blgelow, 16 Wash. 198, 47 Pac. 426; Wallace v. Pereles, 109 Wis. 316, 53 L. R. A. 644, 83 Am. St. Rep. 898, 85 N. W. 371. See Kapiolani Estate v. Atcherley, 238 It. S. 119, 59 L. Ed. 1229.

5. Seyfried v. Knoblauch, 44 Colo. 86, 96 Pac. 993; Samson v. Zimmerman, 73 Kan. 654, 85 Pac.

757; Elliott v. Saufley, 89 Ky. 52, 11 S. W. 200; Eaker v. Harvey, 192 Mo. App. 697, 179 S. W. 985; Smith v. Dixon, 27 Ohio St. 477; Jennings v. Kiernan, 35 Ore. 349, 55 Pac. 443, 56 Pac. 72.

6. Rawle, Covenants for Title, Sec. 98. See Cochran v. Pascault, 54 Md. 1.

7. Rawle, Covenants, Sec.Sec. 99-109. The fact that this covenant may be enforced by specific performance, while the other covenants for title cannot, is the reason, as stated by Mr. Rawle, of its great value to the purchaser.

9. Bibb v. Freeman, 59 Ala. 612; Seyfried v. Knoblauch, 44 Colo. 86, 96 Pac. 993; Hubbard v. Norton, 10 Conn. 422; Lloyd v. Sandusky, 20:: 111. 621, 68 N. E.

154; Wright v. Nipple, 92 Ind. 310; Scantlin v. Allison, 12 Kan. 85; Cushman v. Blanchard, 2 Me. 266, 11 Am. Dec. 76; Cornell v. Jackson, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 506; Dubay v. Kelly, 137 Mich. 345, 100 N. W. 677; Adkins v. Tom-linson, 121 Mo. 487, 26 S. W. 573; Staats v. Ten. Eyck's Ex'rs, 3 Caines (N. Y.) 1ll, 2 Am. Dec. 254; Campbell v. Shaw, 170 N. Car. 186, 86 S. E. 1035; Beaup-lan,d v. Mckeen, 28 Pa. St. 124, 70 Am. Dec. 115.

10. Gray v. Biscoe, Noy, 142; Hartford etc. Ore Co. v. Miller, 41 Conn. 112; Kimball v. Bryant, 25 Minn. 496; Tanner v. Livingston, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 83; Curtis v. Brannon, 98 Tenn. 153, 69 L. R. A. 760, 38 S. W. 1073; Bowne v. Walcott, 1 N. Dak. 415.

11. Hacker v. Blake, 17 Ind. 97; Hencke v. Johnson, 62 Iowa, 555; Sable v. Brockmeier, 45 Minn. 248, 47 N. W. 794; Conklin v. Hannibal etc., R. Co. 65 Mo. 533; Bowne v. Wolcott, 1 N. Dak. 415, 48 N. W. 336; Kinzie ferred to in connection with the question of the amount of damages recoverable, and in a few cases the view referred to is clearly repudiated.12 But since, if the covenantee is allowed to recover what he paid for the land, he should not be allowed to retain the land, the courts, in giving him substantial damages in such case, have occasionally taken measures to protect the covenantor in this regard, either by requiring the tender of a reconveyance as a prerequisite to the recovery of a judgment,13 or ,by regarding the judgment for damages as in itself revesting the title in the covenantor14 or, it might be that the court will require a reconveyance as a prerequisite to the issue of execution on the judgment.15

Although the covenant is broken by reason of lack of title in the grantor at the time of the conveyance, only nominal damages can be recovered if, before suit on the covenant, the lapse of the limitation period has perfected the title of the grantee,16 or if the grantee's title is perfected by the grantor's acquisition of the paramount title, which enures to the benefit of the grantee on the theory of estoppel.17

In case the grantee buys in a paramount title, he can recover the amount paid therefor, provided this v. Riely's Ex'r, 100 Va. 709, 42 S. E. 872; Smith v. Hughes, 50 Wis. 620, 7 N. W. 653.

12. Bolinger v. Brake, 57 Kan. 663, 47 Pac. 537; Parkinson v. Woulds, 125 Mich. 325, 84 N. W. 292; Kincaid v. Brittain, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 119; Blake v. Burnham, 29 Vt. 437.

13. Shorthill v. Ferguson, 44 Iowa, 249, 47 Iowa, 284; Frazer v. Supervisors of Peoria. 74 111. 111. 282; Flint v. Steadman, 36 Vt. 210.

14. Stinson v. Sumner, 9 Mass. 150; Parser v. Brown, 15 N. H.

188; Kincaid v. Brittain, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 123; Campbell v. Martin, 89 Vt. 214, 95 Atl. 494 (on satisfaction of judgment); Noon-an v. Ilsey, 21 Wis. 148.

15. See Rawle, Covenants, Sec. 185; Catlin v. Hurlburt, 3 Vt. 403; Ives v. Niles, 5 Watts (Pa.) 323; Campbell v. Martin, 89 Vt. 214, 95 Atl. 494.

16. Wilson v. Forbes, 2 Dev. (N. Car.) 30; Kincaid v. Britain, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 123; Garfield v. Williams, 2 Vt. 328.

17. Ante, Sec. 449, notes 73-76.

Was a fair and reasonable price, and no more.18

The covenant for right to convey being the equivalent of the covenant of seisin, it follows that the measure of damages for breach is the same, that is, ordinarily the amount of the consideration paid.19

- Covenant for quiet enjoyment and warranty.

The measure of damages for breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment or of warranty is, by the weight of authority, the same as that for breach of the covenant for seisin or of right to convey, that is, in the ordinary case, the value of the land at the time of the conveyance, as measured by the consideration paid, without reference to any increase in value arising from the development of the neighborhood or the improvement of the land itself.20 In some of the New England states, however, the covenants for quiet enjoyment and of warranty are regarded as intended to indemnify the covenantee for any loss suffered by him, and as consequently entitling him to damages to the extent of the value of the land at the time of the eviction.21 Such a rule may involve a very great burden upon one who sells land his title to which is defective, though he believes it to be good, he being thereby made liable for the cost of all improvements, however great, made by his grantee, as well as for any increase in value arising from growth of population and the like causes.22 Upon a breach of the covenant as regards a part of the land only, the grantee is entitled to recover a proportioned part of what he could have recovered on a total breach.23