Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/523

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
BOWNE v. WOLCOTT.
499

there are two other points in the McFadden case that require our attention. Three deeds are declared upon in that case. In the first, Wolcott, in consideration of $300, sold and agreed to convey the land to one Collins. Subsequently, Collins, for a consideration of $600, sold to plaintiff, and at Collins’ request Wolcott, the defendant, deeded directly to plaintiff, and the consideration recited in the deed was the amount paid by plaintiff to Collins, to-wit, $600, but the only consideration received by defendant was the sum of $300. The trial court allowed plaintiff to recover the full $600 and interest. In that there was error. Section 4584, Comp. Laws, reads as follows: “The detriment caused by the breach of a covenant of seisin * * * is deemed to be—First, the price paid to the grantor; * * * second, interest thereon for the time during which the grantee derived no benefit from the property, not exceeding six years; and, third, any expenses,” etc. Had the breach been total, followed by eviction, the recovery should have been limited to the “price paid to the grantor,” with interest and expenses as provided. See, also, Cook v. Curtis, (Mich.) 36 N. W. Rep. 692. In the third cause of action the defendant deeded to one Nugent for a consideration of $100, the deed containing the covenant sued upon. Subsequently, Nugent conveyed to plaintiff for a consideration of $500. In the lower court plaintiff had judgment on the covenant in the deed from defendant to Nugent for the full consideration that plaintiff paid Nugent. This was clearly wrong, for the reason just stated, and for the further reason that plaintiff would have no cause of action whatever on said covenant as against this defendant, even if defendant were included in the wording of the covenant. The covenant of seisin does not run with the land in this state. Section 3444, Comp. Laws, reads as follows: “The only covenants which run with the land are those specified in this title, and those which are incidental thereto.” The following section reads: “Every covenant contained in a grant to an estate in real property which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” The next section reads: “The last section includes covenants of warranty, for quiet enjoyment, and for further assurance on the part of