
    Kortz against Carpenter
    *i*he covenant memTinVcieed, ti^'plssessim, tul. nsiich°acobroken,1S unless tiou^of0the^codhtaidnncc°r of iis possession.
    THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration set forth a deed from the defendant to the plaintiff, dated the 17th December, 1806, for certain lands, in the county of Onondaga, in which, among other things, the defendant did covenant to and with the plaintiff, his heirs and assigns> that he, the defendant, the described premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of him, the plaintiff^ ]-js iie;rs ancj assigns, would warrant and forever defend. The declaration alleged a breach of this covenant; and. that the premises described, &c« at the time of executing the deed, and a long time before, to wit, time out of mind, were adversely, by lawful title and fight, held, pos J
    
      sessed and enjoyed, by the proprietors and claimants of the Great or Hardenbergh patent, &c. and so the plaintiff says, &c.
    There was a demurrer to the declaration and joinder.
    The causes of demurrer assigned were; because the plaintiff alleges no eviction, nor any disturbance to, or interruption of the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the premises, nor any act alleged to have been done in relation to the premises, since the deed was executed; and because the covenant was made on a corrupt and illegal consideration, to wit, maintenance, in selling a pretended right, or. title, &c.
    
      Gold, in support of the demurrer»
    Hawkins, contra»
   Per Curiam.

This case cannot be distinguished fronl that of Waldron v. M'Carty. (3 Johns. Rep. 471.) The covenant for quiet enjoyment goes to the possession and not to the title. It appears to be a technical rule, that nothing amounts to a breach of this covenant, but an actual eviction, or disturbance of the possession of the covenantee. (8 Co. 89. b. Comyn's Rep. Anon. 228.) The defendant is, therefore, entitled to judgment.

Judgment for the defendant.  