
    Thomas Nichols versus William Walter and Others, Executors of William Walter, deceased.
    The rule established, that, in an action upon a covenant of seisin, the plaintiff shall recover only the money paid for the land and interest, applies to actions brought upon conveyances of land in other states, as well as to conveyances of land in this commonwealth.
    This action is covenant broken, in which the plaintiff declares on a deed made by Andrew Oliver, now deceased, and Mary, his wife, and William Walter, now deceased, and Lydia, his wife, the said Walter having survived the said Oliver. The deed was executed September 29,1792, and purported to be a sale by the grantors to the plaintiff in fee, for the sum of 18 dollars 67 cents, of a tract of land in the town of Leering, in the state of New Hampshire, thus described, viz., “ that part of interval lot numbered ten, being on the east side of ContoolcooTc River, agreeably to the original plan, and which was bought by Benjamin Lynde of John Quigley, containing by estimation fifty acres, more or less.” — And the plaintiff avers that in and by said deed the said grantors Andrew and William covenanted with him, his heirs and assigns, that they and their wives in their right *were the lawful owners of the premises ; that they had full right to sell and convey the same to the plaintiff in fee simple; and that they would warrant the same to him and his heirs against all lawful claims.— The plaintiff then assigns the breaches in this manner — that the grantors had right to be seised of the premises, but had no right of entry thereinto; and so had no right to sell and convey the same to the plaintiff in fee simple ; —and further, that the plaintiff after-wards, on the 3d of September 1793, by his deed of that date, had sold the premises to Ebenezer Newman, and in and by the same deed covenanted with the said Newman, that he was the lawful owner of the premises, and had good right to sell and convey the same to him ; that the said Newman afterwards, having been expelled and evicted therefrom by due course of law, prosecuted his action against the plaintiff for the breach of his said covenants, and in such action recovered judgment against the plaintiff for 500 dollars damages, and 55 dollars 49 cents costs of suit.
    The defendants pleaded that the deed declared on was not the deed of the said Oliver and Walter, deceased; which issue was joined.
    At the trial of this issue before the Chief Justice, at the sittings here after the last October term, the execution of the deed was agreed, and the only question remaining was the rule, by which the plaintiff’s damages were to be assessed. — The plaintiff then, to prove his damages, offered in evidence an attested copy of a deed, executed by him to said Newman, bearing date September 3d, 1793, which deed, for the consideration of 133 dollars 33 cents, purported to convey to said Newman, in fee, “a certain piece of land in Deering, being part of the interval lot No. 10, in the original plan, and is bounded, beginning at the east bank of ContoolcooTc River, at a tree marked on the south line of No. 9, and from thence running east 124 rods to a tree marked, thence north 39° east 130 rods to a tree marked, thence north 9° east 20 rods to a tree marked, thence * west 166 rods to the river aforesaid, thence up said river to the bounds first mentioned, containing 100 acres, more or less, agreeably to the original plan; ” — and the said deed contained the covenants between the said Nichols and the said Newman which are above recited in the plaintiff’s declaration. — The admission of this deed in evidence was objected to by the defendant; but the objection was overruled, and the deed was read. —The plaintiff then offered in evidence a judgment of the Superior Court of Judicature of the state of New Hampshire, by which the said Newman recovered against the plaintiff the sums mentioned in the declaration for the breach of the plaintiff’s covenants in a deed made by him to Newman, purporting a conveyance of the land last above described__The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence, not on account of any defect in the au thentication of the record, but because it did not appear to relate to the same land described in the plaintiff’s declaration; but the objection was .overruled, and the copy admitted.—There was no evidence given to the jury, to show that the lands described in the plaintiff’s deed to Newman, or in Newman's judgment against him, were the same lands described in the plaintiff’s declaration ; unless such evidence resulted from the same deed and judgment. — The Chief Justice directed the jury, that, in assessing the damages, they ought to consider as a reasonable measure, the consideration money paid by the plaintiff, with the interest thereon ; and the jury assessed the damages accordingly. — For this direction the plaintiff moved for a new trial, and the action stood over to this term for the con sideration of that motion.
    And now Bigelow, for'the plaintiff, insisted that the case furnished sufficient evidence that the land, which the defendants’ intestate conveyed to the plaintiff, was the same which was conveyed by the latter to Newman, and for the plaintiff’s defect of title, in which Newman had recovered five hundred dollars from him. The plaintiff, having suffered damage to that amount, by reason of the falsity of * the covenants in the deed of the defendants’ intestate to him, is, on every sound principle of law and equity, entitled to an indemnity from the defendants. No technical rules ought to stand in the way of such indemnity.
    As this land is situate in New Hampshire, the contract is to be supposed to be made there, and then the laws of that state ought to govern in its construction." But by the laws of New Hampshire, the plaintiff, in an action upon a covenant of seisin, is entitled to the value of the land at the time of eviction. So it was adjudged in Newman's case, who gave but 133 dollars 33 cents for the land, yet had 500 dollars awarded him.
   But hj the Court.

This case cannot be distinguished from those heretofore decided. The covenants were broken when the deed was executed. The rule is settled, and cannot be shaken, that in every such case the rule of damages is the consideration money paid for the land, and interest from the lime of payment. Let judgment be entered upon the verdict, with interest as additional damages, and costs.

Fuller for the defendants. 
      
      
         [Vide Sumner, Administrator, vs. Williams & Al., ante, 162. — Ed.]
     