18. Anderson v. Knox, 20 Ala. 156; Pate v. Marshall, 23 Ark. 591; Weber v. Anderson. 73 111. 439; Bolinger v. Brake, 57 Kan. 663, 47 Pac. 537; Spring v. Chase, 22 Me. 505, 39 Am. Dec. 500; Kimball v. Bryant, 25 Minn. 496; Hall v. Bray, 51 Mo. 288; Werner v. Wheeler, 142 App. Div. 358, 127 N. Y. Supp. 158; Price v. Deal, 90 N. Car. 290; Eames v. Armstrong, 146 N. Car. 1, 125 Am. St. Rep. 436, 59 S. E. 165; Cobb v. Klosterman, 58 Ore. 211, 114 Pac. 96.

19. Mitchell v. Hazen. 4 Conn. 516, 10 Am. Dec. 169; Willson v. Wlllson, 25 N. II. 233, 57 Am. Dec. 320; Hodges v. Thayer. 110 Mass. 286; Kinzie v. Riely's Ex'r, 100 Va. 709, 42 S. E. 872 (nomhinl damages); Messer v. Oestreich, 52 Wis. 684, 10 N. W. 6.

20. Allinder v. Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co., 164 Ala. 275, 51 So. 234; Weber v. Anderson, 73 Til. 439; Burton v. Reeds, 20 Ind.

87; Swafford v. Whipple, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 261, 54 Am. Dec. 498; Efta v. Swanson, 115 Minn. 373, 132 N. W. 335; Winnipiseogee Paper Co. v. Eaton, 65 N. H. 13, 18 Atl. 171; Bennett v. Jenkins, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 50; Hunt v. Hay, 214 N. Y. 578, 108 N. E. 851; Clark v. Parr, 14 Ohio, 118, 45 Am. Dec. 529; Brown v. Dicker-son, 12 Pa. St. 372; Elliott v. Thompson, 4 Humph. Tenn.) 99, 40 Am. Dec. 630; Lewis v. Ross, 95 Tex. 358, 67 S. W. 405; Far-well v. Bean, 82 Vt. 172, 72 Atl. 731; Conrad v. Effinger, 87 Va. 59, 24 Am. St. Rep. 646, 12 S. E. 2; West Coast Mfg. & Inv. Co. v. West Coast Imp. Co., 31 Wash. 610, 72 Pac. 455.

The amount of the consideration paid by the covenantee, rather than that received by the covenantor, determines the damages. Hunt v. Hay, 214 N. Y. 578, 108 N. E. 851.

In case the grantee is not actually dispossessed, but buys in the outstanding title, he is ordinarily entitled, in an action on the covenant of warranty or for quiet enjoyment, to recover only the amount paid by him therefor.24 In so far as there may be a breach by

21. Horsford v. Wright, Kirby (Conn.) 3, 1 Am. Dec. 8; Gore v. Brazier, 3 Mass. 523, 3 Am. Dec. 182; Cecconi v. Rodden, 147 Mass. 64, 16 N. E. 749; Park v. Bates, 12 Vt. 381, 36 Am. Dec. 347; Williamson v. Williamson, 71 Me. 442.

22. See Rawle, Covenants, Sec.Sec. 165-171.

23. Hoffman v. Kirby, 136 Cal. 26, 68 Pac. 321; Phillips v. Reichert, 17 Ind. 120, 79 Am. Dec. 463; Mcnally v. White, 154 Ind. 63, 54 N. E. 794, 56 N. E. 214; James v. Louisville Public Warehouse Co., 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1216, 64 S. W. 966; Boyle v. Edwards, 114 Mass. 373; Allen v. Miller, 99 Miss. 75, 54 So. 731; Mengel v. Williamson, 50 Pa. Super. Ct. 100; Hynes v. Packard,

92 Tex. 44, 45 S. W. 562; West Coast Mfg. & Inv. Co. v. West Coast Imp. Co., 31 Wash. 610, 72 Pac. 455; Butcher v. Peterson, 26 W. Va. 447, 53 Am. Rep. 89.

24. Brawley v. Copelin, 106 Ark. 256, 153 S. W. 101; Clay-comb v. Munger, 51 111. 373; Beasley v. Phillips, 20 Ind. App. 182, 50 N. E. 488; Sullivan v. Hill, 33 Ky. L. Rep. 962, 112 S. W. 564; Leffingwell v. Elliott. 8 Pick. (Mass.) 455; Brooks v. Mohl, 104 Minn. 404, 116 N. W. 931; Halloway v. Miller, 84 Miss. 776, 36 So. 531; Cheney v. Straube, 35 Neb. 521, 53 N. W. 479; Lemby v. Ellis, 146 N. Car. 221, 59 S. E. 683; Arrigoni v. Johnson, 6 Oreg. 167; Cox v. Henry, 32 Pa. St. 18: Mengel v. Williamson, 50 Pa. Super. Ct. 100; reason of an easement outstanding in a third person,25 he can, it seems, recover only the amount of the consequent decrease in the value of the land.26 In so far as damages for breach of a covenant for title may be measured by the consideration paid, the recital in that regard in the conveyance is not conclusive as to the amount.27

- Covenant against incumbrances. The covenant against incumbrances is considered as one for indemnity only, and the covenantee can recover no more than what he may have been compelled to pay in order to extinguish the outstanding incumbrance,28 or, in case he can not so extinguish it, the amount of injury which he may be considered to have suffered from its existence, ordinarily measured by the resulting diminution in the value of the land.29 But though no loss has been

Brown v. Thompson, 81 S. C. 380, 62 S. E. 440; Mcclelland v. Moore, 48 Tex. 355; Cameron v. Burke, 61 Wash. 203, 112 Pac. 252. But see Nolan v. Feltman, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 119.

25. Ante, Sec. 453, notes 76-78.

26. Harrington v. Bean. 89 Me. 470, 36 Atl. 986; Schwartz v. Black, 131 Tenn. 360, Ann. Cas. 1916C 1195, 174 S. W. 1146.

27. Bass v. Starnes, 108 Ark. 357, 158 S. W. 136; Rook v. Rook, 111 111. App. 398; Cook v. Curtis. 68 Mich. 611, 36 N. W. 692; Holmes v. Seaman, 72 Neb. 300, 100 N. W. 417, 101 N. W. 1030; Mayer v. Wooten. 46 Tex. Civ. App. 327, 102 N. W. 423.

28. Fraser v. Bentel, 161 Cal. 390, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1062, 119 Pac. 509; Mitchell v. Hazen, 4 Conn. 495, 10 Am. Dec. 169; Amos v. Cosby, 74 Ga. 793; Mcdowell v. Milroy, 69 111. 498; Boice v. Coffeen, 158 Iowa, 705, 138 N.

W. 857; Reed v. Pierce, 36 Me. 455, 58 Am. Dec. 761; Johnson v. Collins, 116 Mass. 392; Kellogg v. Malin, 62 Mo. 429; Hartshorn v. Cleveland, 52 N. J. Law 473, 19 Atl. 974; Corbett v Wren, 25 Oreg. 305, 35 Pac. 658; Myers v. Brodbeek, 110 Pa. St. 198, 5 Atl. 662; Pritchard v. Rebori, 135 Tenn. 328, 186 S. W. 121; George A. Lowe Co. v. Simmons Warehouse Co., 39 Utah, 395, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 246, 117 Pac. 874; Eaton v. Lyman, 30 Wis. 429.

29. Rawle, Covenants, Sec.Sec. 190, 191; Fraser v. Bentel, 161 Cal. 390, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1062, 119 Pac. 509; Mitchell v. Stanley, 44 Conn. 312; Morgan v. Smith, 11 111. 194; Kostendader v. Pierce, 37 Iowa, 645; Harrington v. Bean, 89 Me. 470, 36 Atl. 986; Wether-bee v. Bennett, 2 Allen (Mass.) 428; Bailey v. Agawam Nat. Bank. 190 Mass. 20, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 98, 112 Am. St. Rep.

Sustained at the time of bringing suit, he may recover nominal damages, since the covenant is regarded as broken as soon as made, when there is any outstanding incumbrance.30

In those states in which the recovery on a covenant for quiet enjoyment or of warranty is limited to the amount of the consideration paid, the recovery for breach of the covenant against incumbrances is likewise so limited, no matter what expenditure or loss the covenantee may have incurred on account of the incumbrance.'1