
    George Vaughn v. John Matteson.
    
      Eviction — Action for breach of covenant in deeds.
    
    Eviction is a disturbance of an actual or constructive possession; and if the grantee has never bad sucb possession, his substantial remedy for exclusion from the premises is by an action on the covenants of the deed. But the statute of limitations runs against the action from the delivery of the deed, if the grantor had no title when he gave it.
    Error to Ingham.
    Submitted June 19.
    Decided Nov. 22.
    Assumpsit on covenant of quiet enjoyment in a deed from Yaughn to Matteson, executed June 18, 1853, and purporting to convey certain land in Lapeer county. The declaration averred that defendant, at the delivery of the deed, was not' seized in fee simple of the lands and had no lawful authority to convey them, and that Henry M. Bostwick and Erastus S. Sterling held the paramount title, by virtue of which the plaintiff was afterwards evicted. Plaintiff recovered for eviction from a portion of the premises, but as the court below held that his action on the covenants of the deed was barred by the statute of limitations, he brought error. The Supreme Court held that he had recovered more than he was entitled to, and as he had no ground of complaint affirmed the judgment. Defendant Yaughn now brings error on the same judgment.
    
      M. V. & B. A. Montgomery for plaintiff in error.
    
      M. D. Chatterton and H. Geer for defendant in error.
    Possession by a third party, claiming under paramount title at the date of a deed of the premises, amounts to an eviction of the grantee and entitles him to an action for a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, even though he never actually tabes possession and though the grantor had no title, Rawle on Cov., (4th ed.) 154; Murphy v. Price, 48 Mo., 250; Grist v. Hodges, 3 Dev. N. C., 200; Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheat., 61; Park v. Bates, 12 Vt., 38; Clark v. Conroe, 38 Vt., 475; Rea v. Minkler, 5 Lans., 196; Russ v. Steele, 40 Vt., 315; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn., 521; Moore v. Vail, 17 Ill., 185; Boyd v. Bartlett, 36 Vt., 9; 2 Wait’s Actions, 384; Shattuck v. Lamb, 65 N. Y., 499; Brady v. Spurck, 27 Ill., 479; Claycomb v. Munger, 51 Ill., 373; Jones v. Warner, 81 Ill., 343; Caldwell v. Kirkpatrick, 6 Ala., 60; Banks v. Whitehead, 7 Ala., 83; Small v. Reeves, 14 Ind., 164; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 507; Fowler v. Poling, 6 Barb., 165; Dennis v. Heath, 11 Sm. & M., 206; Witty v. Hightower, 12 id., 478; inability to obtain possession amounts to eviction Hamilton v. Cutts, 4 Mass., 349; Loomis v. Bedel, 11 N. H., 74; Beebe v. Swartwout, 3 Gilm., 162; Winslow v. McCall, 32 Barb., 246.
   Per Curiam.

This case is covered by the decision on a previous writ of error between the same parties. See Matteson v. Vaughn, 38 Mich., 373.

The judgment is reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.  