INCUMIIRANCES.
A covenant for indefeasible seisin is every where held to run with the land ; Garfield v. Williams, 2 Vt. 328 ; Wilson v. Forbes, 13 N. C. 30; Bender v. Fromberger, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 439, 1 L. Ed. 898; Kincaid v. Brittain, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 123; Abbott v. Allen, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 248; Smith v. Strong, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 128; Collier v. Gamble, 10 Mo. 467; and to apply to all titles adverse to the grantor's; 2 Washb. R. P. 656.
A covenant of seisin or lawful seisin, in England and most of the,states, is satisfied only by an indefeasible seisin ; Rawle, Coy. § 41; 7 C. B. 310; Mills v. Catlin, 22 Vt. 106 ; Parker v. Brown, 15 N. H. 176 ; Lockwood v. Sturdevant, 6 Conn. 374; while in other states possession under a claim of right is sufficient ; Catlin v. Hurlburt, 3 Vt. 403 ; Raymond v. Raymond, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 134; Bearce v. Jackson, 4 Mass. 408; Marston v. Hobbs, 2 Mass. 439, 3 Am. Dec. 61; Wilson v. Widenham, 51 Me. 567; Montgomery v. Reed, 69 Me. 510; Watts v. Parker, 27 Ill. 229 ; Scott v. Twiss, 4 Neb. 133; Vancourt v. Moore, 26 Mo. 92; Backus' Adm'rs v. McCoy, 3 Ohio 211, 17 Am. Dec. 585; Robinson v. Neil, 3 Ohio 525.
A covenant of seisin, of whatever form, is broken at the time of the execution of the deed if the grantor has no possession either by himself or another ; and no rights can pass to the assignee of the grantee; Greenby v. Wilcocks, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 1, 3 Am. Dec. 379; Garfield v. Williams, 2 Vt. 327; Mitch ell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 497; Bartholomew v. Candee, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 170; Devore v. Sunderland, 17 Ohio 60, 49 Am. Dec. 442; Dickinson v. Hooins's Adm'r, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 397; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 430, 2 L. Ed. 666 ; Allen v. Little, 36 Me. 170; Abernathy v. Boazman, 24 Ala. 189, 60 Am. Dec. 459; 4 Kent 471: But it is said that this is only a technical breach, and that a cause of action for a substantial breach does not accrue, and the statute of limitations commence to run, till there has been some substantial injury ; Forshay v. Shafer, 116 Ia. 302, 89 N. W. 1106; but other cases hold that the full consideration paid may be re covered immediately upon breach. The cases will be found in 8 Am. & Engl. Enc. Law
186.
The existence of an outstanding life-es tate; Mills v. Catlin, 22 Vt. 106; a material deficiency in the amount of land ; Pringle v. Witten's Ex'rs, 1 Bay (S. C.) 256, 1 Am. Dec. 612 ; see Phipps v. Tarpley, 24 Miss: 597; non-existence of the land described ; Wheelock •v. Thayer, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 68; the existence of fences or other fixtures on the premises belonging to other persons, who have a right to remove them; Mott v. Palm er, 1 N. Y. 564; West v. Stewart, 7 Pa. 122; Van Wagner v. Van Nostrand, 19 Ia. 427 ; or of a paramount right in another to divert a natural spring; Clark v. Conroe's Estate, 38 Vt. 471; or to prevent the grantee from damming water to a certain height when that right is reserved to him by his deed; Hall v. Gale, 20 Wis. 293 ; Traster v. Snelson's Adm'r, 29 Ind. 96 ; concurrent seisin of 'an other as tenant in common ; Wheeler v. Hatch, 12 Me. 389; Morrison v. McArthur, 43 Me. 567; adverse possession of a part by a stranger; Sedgwick v. Hollenback, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 376; a conveyance by one of two tenants in common of the entire estate (so far as his half is concerned) ; Downer's Adm'rs v. Smith, 38 Vt. 464 ; constitute a breach of this covenant. But the existence of such easements or incumbrances as do not affect the seisin of the purchaser does not constitute a breach of the covenant; Rawle, Coy. § 59. For instance, the existence of a highway over a part of the land; Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. (N. Y.7 449, 8 Am. Dec. 263; Lewis v. Jones, 1 Pa. 336, 44 Am. Dec. 138 ; Peck v. Smith, 1 Conn. 103, 6 Am. Dec. 216; Vaughn v. Stuyaker, 16 Ind. 340; or of a judgment, mortgage, or right of dower; Rawle, Cov. § 59; Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 430, 19 Am. Dec. 139; Tuite v. Miller, 10 Ohio 383 ; Sedgwick v. Hollen back, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 380; (otherwise if the mortgagee has entered ; Rawle, Cov. § 59); the removal of fixtures ; Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792, 6 Am. Rep. 173. But see Whit ney v. Dinsmore, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 124.
In the execution of a power, a covenant that the power is subsisting and not revoked is substituted; Platt, Cov. 309.