
    The Executors of Guerard against Rivers.
    In covenant for a warranty for land sold, the value of land at the lime, of the eviction, is the measure of damages.
    COVENANT for damages on warranty for land sold. In 1779, the defendant sold to Guerard., two tracts of land — one of 1,050 acres and the other of 371 acres, for 100,000/. currency, which, when depreciated, was equal to 700/. sterling. Soon after the purchase, Guerard settled the tracts, cleared part of the rice land, made several improvements and arrangements for an extensive plantation. In 1786, William, Bert and wife, brought thsir action of ejectment, and recovered from Guerard the land in ques-^011» being.part of an ancient barony which came to Mrs» Sort upon the death of an ancestor.
    On this action, therefore, being brought by the executors of Guerard against the defendant, upon the usual covenants contained in the release, the only question was, as to what should be the measure of damages.
    For the defendant, it was contended, that the purchase money and interest should be the measure by which the jury were to be governed,- and to that effect, was cited the case of Stitt v. Eveleigh, (ante.)
    
    For the plaintiff, it was replied, that the real value of the land at the time of the eviction ought to be the measure. The case of Liber and wife v. The Executors of Parsons, (ante) was relied on in support of this point.
   Giumke, J.

was of opinion with the defendants, that the purchase-money and interest, was the rule for the jury to govern themselves by.

Waties, J.

differed, and thought the value of the lands at the time of eviction, was the best general rule for the government of juries, in cases of this nature. Though in special cases, he agreed, that the jury might make the consideration money and interest, the rule of estimating their damages.

Bay, J.

concurred, that' the real value of the property at the time of the eviction, and not the consideration money paid, was the true measure of damages. That damages were the compensation given by law, for the loss a man sustained by the breach of warranty. Then the loss was the real value, or what the property would have sold for at the time of eviction. To give less, would not be doing the plaintiff justice. He relied on the case of Liber and wife v. The executors’ of Parsons, which he thought had been determined upon very just and legal principles. As to the case of Stitt v. Eveleigh, it was an exception out of the general rule, as it was founded on a speculative negro con» tract, made in the course of the depreciation of t]ie paper currency, under very peculiar circumstances; in which the jury had exercised a proper discretion, -which was acquiesced in by the parties. But he did not conceive that case as by any means fixing the law, or even calling in question the case quoted by the plaintiff’s counsel.

Pringle and Lining, for the plaintiffs.

Pinckney and Rutledge, for the defendant.

The jury found for the plaintiffs, and declared in delivering their verdict, that they were governed by the real value at the time of the eviction, though they thought the plaintiffs had valued the land too high.  