Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Equal Protection Of The to Family Arrangement >> Eviction

Eviction

am, rep, rule, va and dec

EVICTION. The damages recoverable for an eviction, in an action for breach of cove nants of seisin and warranty in a deed, are the consideration-money, interest thereon, and the costs, if any, of defending the evic tion. This is not in accordance with the fun damental doctrine of the law of damages, but it is the rule in most of the states, and is sometimes termed the New York rule; Tay lor v. Barnes, 69 N. Y. 434 ; McClure's Ex'rs v. Gamble, 27 Pa. 288 ; Ware v. Weathnall, 2 McCord (S. C.) 413 (earlier decisions were contra ; Liber v. Parsons' Ex'rs, 1 Bay [S. C.1 19 ; Eveleigh v. Stitt, 1 Bay [S. C.] 92; Guerard's Ex'rs v. Rivers, 1 Bay [S. C.] 265); Threlkeld's Adm'r v. Fitzhugh's Ex'x, 2 Leigh (Va.) 451; (also after conflicting decisions, Mills v. Bell, 3 Call [Va.] 320) ; Abernathy v. Phillips, 82 Va. 769, 1 S. E. 113 ; Shaw v. Wilkins' Adm'r, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 647, 49 Am. Dec. 692 ; Clark v. Parr, 14 Ohio 118, 45 Am. Dec. 529 ; Carvill v. Jacks, 43 Ark. 439; Martin v. Gordon, 24 Ga. 533 ; Harding v. Larkin, 41 Ill. 413 ; Rhea v. Swain, 122 Ind. 272, 22 N. E. 1000, 23 N. E. 776; Shorthill v. Ferguson, 44 Ia. 249 ; Levitzky v. Canning, 33 Cal. 299 ; McGary v. Hastings, 39 Cal. 360, 2 Am. Rep. 456 ; Morris v. Rowan, 17 N. J. L. 304 ; Winnipiseogee Paper Co. v. Eaton, 65 N. H. 13, 18 Atl. 171; Phipps v. Tarpley, 31 Miss. 433; Tong v, Matthews, 23 Mo. 437; Devine v. Lewis, 38 Minn. 24, 35 N. W. 711; Ramsey v. Wallace, 100 N. C. 75, 6 S. E. 638 ; Glenn v. Mathews, 44 Tex. 400; Crisfield v. Storr, 36 Md. 129, 150, 11 Am. Rep. 480 ; Hoff man v. Bosch, 18 Nev. 360, 4 Pac. 703 ; Kings bury v. Milner, 69 Ala. 502 ; Stebbins v. Wolf, 33 Kan. 765, 7 Pac. 542 ; Butcher v. Peterson,

26 W. Va. 447, 53 Am. Rep. 89 ; 8 U. C. Q. B. 191 (but see 13 U. C. C. P. 146) ; but the value of improvements may be recovered ; Coleman v. Ballard's Heirs, 13 La. Ann. 512 ; and see as to Louisiana, New Orleans v. Gaine's Adm'r, 131 U. S. 191, 9 Sup. Ct. 745, 33 L. Ed. 99 ; though excluded by the Ne0 York rule ; Pitcher v. Livingston, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 1, 4 Am. Dec. 229. In Mississippi a vendee who has lost laud by reason of a title paramount to his remote vendor may recover the amount which such remote vendor re ceived for the land ; Brooks v. Black, 68 Miss. 161, 8 South. 332, 11' L. R. A. 176, 24 Am. St. Rep. 259.

What is known as the New England rule establishes as the measure of damages the value of the land at the time of eviction, to gether with the expenses of the suit, etc., and this is followed in all the New England states, Quebec, and Michigan ; Furnas v. Durgin 119 Mass. 500, 20 Am. Rep. 341; Ryerson v. Chapman, 66 Me. 557 ; Sterling v. Peet, 14 Conn. 245 ; Park v. Bates, 12 Vt. 381, 36 Am. Dec. 347 ; Keeler v. Wood, 30 Vt. 242 ; 6 Can. 425 ; and it is also recog nized as the rule in England ;. 9 Q. B. D. 128.

Where 'a paramount title is purchased to prevent actual eviction the measure of dam ages is the price paid with interest ; Jenks v. Quinn, 61 Hun 427, 16 N. Y. Supp. 240 ; James v. Lamb, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 185, 21 S. W. 172 ; • and where the breach alleged was the foreclosure of a mortgage,' it is the amount paid to redeem the land and expens es of defending the title ; Matheny v. Stew art, 108 Mo. 73, 17 S. W. 1014.