MANCE.
The mere existence of an incumbrance constitutes a breach of this covenant ; Washb. R. P. 658; MuLemore v. Mabson, 20 Ala. 137; without regard to the knowledge of the grantee ; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 242 ; Butler v. Gale, 27 Vt. 739; Medler v. Hiatt, 8 Ind. 171.
Such covenants, being in prcesenti, do not run with the land in Massachusetts and most of the other states ; but the rule is otherwise, either by statute or decision in Maine, R. S. 1883, p..697, tit. 9, § 18; Colo rado, R. S. 1883, 172 ; Georgia, Code 1882, 672; New York, Hall v. Dean, 13 Johns. 105; Colby v.. Osgood, 29 Barb. 339 ; Ohio, Foote v. Burnet, 10 Ohl& 327, 36 Am. Dec. 90; Minnesota, Kimball v. Bryant, 25 Miun. 496; Missouri, Magwire v. Riggin, 44 Mo. 512; Hall v. Scott Co., 7 Fed.. 341, 2 McCrary 356; Indiana, Martin v. Baker, 5 Blackf. 232; Wisconsin, Mecklem v. Blake, 22 Wis. 495, 99 Am. Dec. 68 (reversing the rule adopted in Pillsbury v. Mitchell, 5 Wis. 17); Iowa, Knadler v. Sharp, 36 Ia. 232; South, Carolina, Brisbane v. M'Crady's Ex'rs, 1 N. & McC. 104, 9 Am. Dec. 676; Vermont, Cole v. Kim ball, 52 Vt. 639; and possibly in Michigan. See Rawle, Coy. § 212. If the covenant is so linked with another covenant as to have a prospective operation it runs with the land; id. This covenant is usually coupled with
that of seisin in considering this question, but it was not treated as running with the land in this country so readily as the latter; Rawle, Coy. § 212.
Yet the incumbrance may be of such a character that its enforcement may consti tute a breach of the covenant of *arranty; as in case of a mortgage ; Hamilton v. Cutts, 4 Mass. 349, 3 Am. Dec. 222 ; Sprague v. Baker, 17 Mass. 586 ; Tufts v. Adams, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 547.
The measure of damages is the amount of injury actually sustained; Delavergne v. Norris, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 358, 5 Am. Dec. 281; Bean v. Mayo, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 94; Wyman v. Ballard, 12 Mass. 304; Batchelder v. Stur gis, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 201; Morrison v. Un derwood, 20 N. H. 369; Willson v. Willson, 25 N. H. 229, 57 Am. Dec. 320; Rawle, Coy. § 188.
The covenantee may extinguish the in cumbrance and recover therefor, at his elec tion, in the absence of agreement; Lawless v. Collier's Ex'rs, 19 Mo. 480; Willson v. Willson, 25 N. H. 229, 57 Am. Dec. 320. See COVENANT; REAL COVENANT.