37. Wood v. Kingston Coal Co., 48 111. 356, 95 Am. Dec. 554; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Banister, 89 Miss. 808, 42 So. 345.

38. See Spring v. Chase, 22 Me. 505, 39 Am. Dec. 595.

39. Ante, Sec. 453, note 96.

40. Kingsbury v. Milner, 69 Ala. 502; Beach v. Nordman, 90 Ark. 59, 117 S. W. 785; Mc-cormick v. Marcy, 165 Cal. 449, 132 Pac. 449; Harding v. Larkin. 41 111. 413; Stebbins v. Wolf, 33 Kan. 765, 7 Pac. 542; Robertson v. Lemon, 2 Bush (Ky.) 302; Dubay v. Kelly, 137 Mich. 345, 100 N. W. 677; Brooks v. Mohl. 104 Minn. 404, 116 N. W. 931; Brooks v. Black, 68 Miss. 161, 11 L. R. A. 176, 24 Am. St. Rep. 259, 8 So. 332; Hazelett v. Woodalso allowed the reasonable amount of fees paid his attorney in such action,41 while in others his right to attorney's fees is denied.42 Not infrequently the covenantee has been said to be entitled to recover the expense or cost of such previous litigation, an expression presumably broad enough to include attorney's fees as well as taxed costs.43 ruff, 150 Mo. 534, 51 S. W. 1048; Taylor v. Holter, 1 Mont. 688; Jones v. Balsley, 154 N. C. 61, 69 S. E. 827; Pitcher v. Livingston, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 4 Am. Dec. 229; Mcalpin v. Woodruff, 11 Ohio St. 120; Welsh v. Kidber, 5 S. C. 405; Mengel Box Co. v. Ferguson, 124 Tenn. 433, 137 S. W. 101; Morgan v. Haley, 107 Va. 331, 13 L. R. A. N. S. 732, 12 Am. St. Rep. 846, 13 Ann. Cas. 204, 58 S. E. 564. Contra, Taylor v. Allen, 131 Ga. 416, 62 S. E. 291; Terry's Ex'r v. Drabenstadt, 48 Pa. 400; Clark v. Mumford, 62 Tex. 531. See Shook v. Lanfer, (Tex. Civ. App.) 100 S. W. 1042.

The covenantee is obviously not entitled to the costs of defending an action in which he is successful, since this would impose liability under the covenant for the act of a third person not having paramount title. Hoffman v. Dickson. 65 Wash. 556, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 67, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 869, 118 Pac. 737; Smith v. Parsons, 33 W. Va. 644, 11 S. E. 68.

41. Beach v. Nordman. 90 Ark. 59, 117 S. W. 785; Mccormick v. Marcy, 165 Cal. 449, 132 Pac. 449; Harding v. Larkin, 41 111. 413; Meservey v. Snell, 94 Iowa, 222, 58 Am. St. Rep. 391, 62 N. W. 767; Burchfield v. Brinkman,

Involving the validity of the claim, and which resulted in favor of the latter.47

92 Kan. 377, 140 Pac. 894; Robertson v. Lemon, 2 Bush (Ky.) 302; Ryerson v. Chapman, 66 Me. 557; Brooks v. Mohl, 104 Minn. 404, 116 N. W. 931; Hazelett v. Woodruff, 150 Mo. 534, 51 S. W. 1048; Taylor v. Holter, 1 Mont. 688; Walton v. Campbell, 51 Neb. 788, 71 N. W. 737; Rickert v. Snyder, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 416; Lane v. Fury, 31 Ohio St. 574; Keeler v. Wood, 30 Vt. 242.

42. Taylor v. Allen, 131 Ga. 416, 62 S. E. 291; Reggio v. Braggiotti, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 166; Brooks v. Black, 68 Miss. 161, 11 L. R. A. 17G, 24 Am. St. Rep. 259, 8 So. 332; Holmes v. Sin-nickson, 15 N. J. L. 313; Terry v. Drabenstadt, 68 Pa. 400; Jeter v. Glenn, 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 374; Mengel Box Co. v. Ferguson, 124 Tenn. 433, 137 S. W. 101; Turner v. Miller, 42 Tex. 418; 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.

43. Beach v. Nordman, 90 Ark. 59, 117 S. W. 785; Butler v. Barnes, 61 Conn. 399, 24 Atl. 328; Meservey v. Snell, 94 Iowa, 222, 58 Am. St. Rep. 391. 62 N. W. 767; Stebbins v. Wolf, 33 Kan. 765, 7 Pac. 542; Quick v. Walker, 125 Mo. App. 257, 102 S. W. 33; Williamson v. Williamson,

The view has occasionally been asserted or suggested that the costs of the previous action,44 or the amount of attorneys' fees therein,45-46 should be allowed only in case the covenantee notified the covenantor of the litigation in time to enable the latter to determine the advisability of contesting the adverse claim, the covenantee being in that case entitled to recover such expenditures unless the covenantor requested him not to make the contest.

The allowance to the covenantee of the cost of previous litigation between him and the paramount claimant has not been confined to the case of an action against him by such claimant, but has been extended to the case of a proceeding by him against such claimant

71 Me. 442; Cheney v. Straube, 35 Neb. 521, 53 N. W. 479; Ryerson v. Chapman, 66 Me. 557; Richmond v. Ames, 164 Mass. 467, 41 N. E. 671; Brooks v. Mohl, 104 Minn. 404. 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1195, 116 N. W. 931; Taylor v. Holter, 1 Mont. 688; Drew v. Towle, 30 N. H. 531 (semble); Winnepiseogee P. Co. v. Eaton, 65 N. H. 13, 18 Atl. 171 (semble); Lane v. Fury, 31 Ohio St. 574; Point St. Iron Works v. Turner, 14 R. I. 122, 51 Am. Rep. 364; Keeler v. Wood, 30 Vt. 242; Tar-bell v. Tarbell, 60 Vt. 486, 15 Atl. 104.

44. De Jarnette v. Dreyfus, 166 Ala. 138, 51 So. 932; Butler v. Barnes, 61 Conn. 399, 24 Atl. 328; Teague v. Whaley, 20 Ind. App. 26, 50 N. E. 41; Walsh v. Dunn, 34 111. App. 146; Mercantile Trust Co. v. South Park Residence Co., 94 Ky. 271, 22 S. W. 314; Hutchins v. Roujndtree, 77 Mo. 500; Mengel Box Co. v. Ferguson, 124 Tenn. 433, 137 S. W.

101. But that no notice is necessary, see Ryerson v. Chapman, 66 Me. 557; Morris v. Rowan. 17 N. J. L. 304; Tarbell v. Tarbell, 60 Vt. 488, 15 Atl. 104. See Matheny v. Stewart, 108 Mo. 73, 17 S. W. 1014.

45-46. Garner v. Morris, 187 Ala. 658, 65 So. 1000; Teague v. Whaley, 20 Ind. App. 26, 50 N. E. 41; Meservey v. Snell, 94 Iowa, 222, 58 Am. St. Rep. 391, 62 N. W. 767; Mercantile Trust Co. v. South Park Residence Co., 94 Ky. 271, 22 S. W. 314; Crisfield v. Storr, 36 Md. 129, 11 Am. Rep. 480; Richmond v. Ames, 164 Mass. 467, 41 N. E. 671; Mackenzie v. Clement, 144 Mo. App. 114, 129 S. W. 730; Jeffords v. Dreis-bach, 168 Mo. App. 577, 153 S. W. 274; Balte v. Bademiirbr, 37 Ore. 27, 82 Am. St. Rep. 737, 60 Pac. 601; Ellis v. Abbott, 69 Ore. 234, 138 Pac. 488; Point St. Iron Works v. Turner, 14 R. I. 122, 51 Am. Rep. 364.

- Action against remote grantor. Upon the question of the measure of damages in an action upon a covenant of warranty brought, not by the original covenantee, but by a remote grantee entitled to the benefit of the covenant as one running with the land,48 the cases are not in accord. Some courts have adopted the view that the purchase price paid by the original covenantee is the measure of recovery,49 while others regard the recovery as limited by what the plaintiff himself paid for the land,50 without, however, recognizing any right to recover more than the price paid by the original covenantee, if this was less than that paid by the plaintiff.51 These latter cases thus in effect regard the covenant as one for limited indemnity.

47. Chestnut v. Tyson, 105 Ala. 149, 16 So. 723, 53 Am. St. Rep. 101; Gragg v. Richardson, 25 Ga. 566, 71 Am. Dec. 190 (semble); Walsh v. Dunn, 34 111. App. 146; Yokum v. Thomas, 15 Iowa, 67; Barnett v. Montgomery, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 331; Kyle v. Faunt-leroy, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 622; Ryer-son v. Chapman, 66 Me. 557; Haynes v. Stevens, 11 N. H. 28.. Andrews v. Davison, 17 N. H. 413, 43 Am. Dec. 606; Lane v. Fury, 31 Ohio St. 574; Pitkin v. Leavitt, 13 Vt. 379.

48. Post. Sec. 456.

49. Mischke v. Baughn, 52 Iowa, 528, 3 N. W. 543; Dougherty v. Duvall, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 57; Cook v. C'irtis, 6S Mich. 611. 36 N. W. 692; Brooks v. Black. 68 Miss. 161, 8 So. 332, 11 L. R. A. 176, 24 Am. St. Rep. 259; Low-rance v. Rohertson, 10 S. C. 8; Lewis v. Ross, 95 Tex. 358, 67 S. W. 405; Hollingsworfh v. Mexia,

Of his ownership of the land.55 It appears to be the rule, however, in a number of states, that the benefit of the covenant will not pass unless the covenantor,56 or the covenantee,57 was in possession of the land at the time of his transfer thereof, such possession being regarded as involving an interest in the land,58 to which the covenant can be regarded as adhering, while in the absence of such possession the attempted conveyance by the covenantee, with a paramount title outstanding, transfers no interest whatsoever with which the covenant can run.

14 Tex. Civ. App. 363, 37 S. W. 455; Rogers v. Golson, (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 200.

50. Barnett v. Hughey, 54 Ark. 195, 15 S. W. 464; Taylor v. Wallace, 20 Colo. 211, 46 Am. St. Rep. 285, 37 Pac. 963; Crisfield v. Storr, 36 Md. 129, 11 Am. Rep. 480; Moore v. Frankenfield, 25 Minn. 540; Dickson v. Desire, 23. Mo. 166; Williams v. Beeman, 2 Dev. L. (13 N. C.) 483; Mette v. Dow, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 93: Whitz-man v. Hirsh, 87 Tenn. 513, 11 S. W. 421; Eaton v. Lyman, 26 Wis. 61. 7 Am. Rep. 39.

51. Barnett v. Hughey, 54 Ark. 195, 15 S. W. 464; Taylor v. Wallace, 20 Colo. 211, 46 Am. St. Rep. 285, 37 Pac. 963; Crisfield v. Storr, 36 Md. 129. 11 Am. Rep. 480; Moore v. Frankenfield, 25 Minn. 540; Dickson v. Desire, 23 Mo. 166; Williams v. Beeman. 2 Dev. L. (S. C.) 483; Whitz-man v. Hirsh, 87 Tenn. 513, 11