
    Liber and Wife against The Executors of Parsons.
    The value of time of crac-¿ule of 9‘0i eonsl* noy at the ¿se. P
    
      eiiiij/r.\ryoI-cowhu^tothe extent of me injury sus-cjive the full mresemdthe ^"¿aeeord-eifoumstances theuase-
    ACTION of covenant brought for a breach of warranty, in a common release for a lot of land in Charleston. The case was this : the defendant’s testator, Parsons, in his lifetime, sold to Alexander Burn, the father of the plaintiff’s wife, a lot of land in Charleston, which he had purchased at a sheriff’s sale. Burn soon after died ; and the lot came to Mrs. Liber, his only child, by descent. Patrick Hinds, who had lands adjoining, upon running his lines, took in about two-thirds of the lot in question, and that in a diagonal direction, which. ruined the shape of the remainder ‘ r of the lot, and rendered it unfit for any valuable improvement. He afterwards brought his ejectment, and evicted Liber and wife out of the part he claimed. Upon which, the plaintiffs brought the present suit, upon the breach of the covenant of warranty in Parson’s release. The quan-turn of damages was, therefore, the only point in dispute.
    Pinckney, for defendants,
    observed, that, as executors, they could not estimate damages themselves, but were obliged to stand this suit, in order that they might be ascertained by the verdict of a jury. He said the rule for estimating the damages in a case like this, was the consideration money paid and mentioned in the release ; which, when depreciated, amounted to SQL sterling, with interest from the date of the deed, 1778, to the time of the verdict. He also contended, that as Hinds did not recover the whole lot, damages ought to be given only for the part recovered.
    
      Bay, contra.
    The remaining part of the lot is of little or no value, as the object of the purchase is defeated, by the part taken off. No valuable improvements can be made on the remaining part, as Hinds’ line cuts through in a diagonal direction, so as to leave only 23 feet front, and 1,35 in the rear. The jury will then easily perceive; that the bargain ought to be rescinded in toto, and the full value °f the lot given in damages. The true rule of estimating ‘-^10se damages is, not what the purchaser,pays, or the consideration in the deed, but the value of the property at the time of the eviction, with interest from that date ; for then it is, that the injury is sustained. 1 Domat. 77»
    
   Pendleton, J.

There can be no doubt but that the-measure of estimating damages, in a case like the present, is the value of the land at the time of the eviction. Men do not make purchases, with a view of merely having interest for their money ; but they contemplate the rise in the value of the thing purchased. That value, then, the plaintiffs are justly entitled to. It is true, the whole lot is not recovered from them : a part still remains ; but the remaining part is greatly depreciated by the shape of it. It is, therefore, a matter altogether for the consideration of the jury, in the estimate of damages they mean to give, whether they will apportion the damages according' to the amount of the injury sustained, or give the full amount of the value of the lot, so as to rescind the contract, entirely, as they think proper.

Verdict for plaintiffs to the full value of the lot — 238/. 13.?. 6(f,  