
    Robert Faries vs. The Administrator of H. H. Smith.
    
      Warranty — Breach of Covenant for quiet enjoyment against Warrantor himself.
    
    A warranty in the usual form against the grantor and his heirs is a' covenant as well of seizin as for quiet enjoyment, not against the world, but against the grantor and his heirs.
    Where the grantee is evicted by one who claims under an older deed from the grantor, such eviction is a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment against the warrantor himself.
    BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT YORK, FALL TEEM, 1857.
    The report of bis Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
    
      “ This was an action of covenant, on a deed of conveyance of land executed by the defendant’s intestate. The warranty was against himself and his heirs. He had, before he conveyed to the plaintiff, conveyed to another, a portion of land which conflicted with the plaintiff’s title, and cut off twenty-three acres. The grantee, under the intestate’s senior deed, entered upon the land thus covered by it.
    “ This was assigned as a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment against the. intestate and his heirs. I thought the ouster under his deed was the same as by himself, and hence the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury found accordingly.”
    The defendant appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial, on the following ground:
    Because his Honor, the presiding Judge, instructed the jury that the deed executed by H. H. Smith to the plaintiff, contained a covenant of quiet enjoyment, and tbe plaintiff was entitled to recover against tbe defendant, administrator of said H. H. Smith, on its being shown that H. H. Smith, before his conveyance to plaintiff, had conveyed a part of the land to another who had lately entered on it — when it is respectfully submitted he erred therein, and said deed contained no covenant for quiet enjoyment, except against H. H. Smith and his heirs, who never interfered with said enjoyment.
    Williams, for appellant.
    Prom .the words “ grant, bargain, sell and release,” used in our ordinary deeds of conveyance, "with a clause of general warranty against all persons — the law implies a covenant óf seizin and also of quiet enjoyment. But in this deed, the warranty is against H. H. Smith and his heirs, and it is submitted that as an express covenant is contained in the deed, none can be implied from the general words of the conveyance. Stannard vs. Forbes, 6 A. & E. 572. It may be that as Smith was not seized of the twenty-three acres, at the time he conveyed to plaintiff, there was a breach of the covenant of seizin. But the plea of the statute of limitations, pleaded, disposes of that matter. The grantor covenanted for quiet enjoyment against himself and heirs. Is a previous conveyance by himself and entry under it a breach of said covenant ? If a lease contain a covenant for quiet enjoyment against the lessor and those who claim under him, the lessee cannot, upon an eviction by a paramount title, recover under the implied covenant for general title implied in the word demise. 2 Steph. Nisi Prius, m. p. 1081. Covenant for title against the acts of the covenantor and those claiming under him, is not broken by the circumstance of the previous death of covenantor’s cestui que vie. Stannard vs. Forbes, 6 A. & E. 272 ; Jeter vs. Glen, 9 Eich. 379 ; 2 Bos. &; P. 13.
    
      
      Witherspoon, contra,
    cited Bond vs. Quatilebaum, 1 McC. 584.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

I entertain so little doubt about this case, that I shall very briefly present my views. Our deeds are said, in the clause of warranty, to contain covenants of seizin and quiet enjoyment. A warranty against a man and his heirs must necessarily be both a covenant of seizin, and also of quiet enjoyment, not against the world, but against the warrantor and his heirs Por the limitation as to the covenants is merely as to the persons, against whom he warrants.

An entry under the title of the warrantor is the same as an entry by himself. Por his title authorizes the entry: and when a recovery of the premises is had under his deed and an eviction follows, it is the same as an eviction by himself, and that is a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment against himself.

These principles are so plain, that every lawyer must acknowledge them, and authority cannot be necessary to sustain them.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw, WitheRS, WhitNER, G-lover and Muhro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  