Case ID: tenn_1/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Sed Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JUNE, 1808.
    ESTILL ET ALS. vs. BLAKEMORE.
    Covenant, that a tract of land should be of a certain quality, and to execute a deed, which had been done some time since, but the bond or covenant retained. The declaration for breach, stated, that the land was not of the value covenanted.
    The question with the court and jury was, whether the value of the land should be estimated at the time of the conveyance in this case or covenant broken, or at the time of rendering the verdict.
    If a man covenant that land is of a certain quality in estimating the damages for a breach of this covenant, the value of the land at the time of entering into the covenant ought to govern the jury.
    M'Nairy, J. said, he had understood the practice in the state was to assess the damages in such cases, according to the value at the time of the verdict, but he much doubted, whether such practice was legal or not.
    Tood, J. Cases have been decided in New-York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Virginia, contrary to the practice here, as stated. The practice here, therefore, is very doubtful, and I am strongly inclined to think it is not law.
    M'Nairy, J. It would seem that we could not with propriety depart from the practice in the state without further argument.
    The court left the decision to the jury without any particular directions. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff, and Grundy for the defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground of excessive damages.
   Sed Per Curiam.

The damages are not excessive, nor more, it is believed, than the value of the land, estimated at the time of the covenant broken, or date of the deed, and interest. (Ex relatione, Mr. Grundy.)

Note. The practice of the state as referred to in this case, is certainly repugnant to the authorities. Vide act 1786, c. 4, s. 5. Ird. 577. Cro. Car. 455. Humphreys vs. Knight. 1 Ver. 217. Speake vs. Speake. 12 Mod. 526. Berty vs. Dormer, per Holt, C.J, 3 Caine’s 111. Staats vs. the executors of Ten. Eyck. Bender vs. Fremberger’s executors, Supreme court of Pennsylvania, January, 1807. 4 Dall. 436. Hen. & Mun. Rep 202. Lowther vs. the Commonwealth. 1 Reeves English law, 444-7-8. 2 Bl. Rep. 1078. Flureaw vs. Thornhill. Kaim’s Pr. Eq. 206 to 225. 21 Vin tit. value. Cox vs. Strode, court of appeals, Kentucky, fall term, 1810.