The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-03-28
Walker be affirmed with costs. :. G. s. Lacev for
plaintiff and appellee; Elan for defendant and

| appellant. -
Where and exchanged lands under full warranty an,
was Afterwards evcted from the land he had so &C
CURED from B. the latter not having had title thereto
hed, that had by law the choice sue in the alter
native either for damages or for the land he had trans
Tered to that evidence properly received to show
the value Of the land. given by in exchange, as thu
measure Of damages and that the value of the land from
"ncn was evlced was not To correct test of the in
jury he had sustained.
JAMES BARcUs Us. MARY A. FARRAR AND Hus-
BAND No. 1864. Appeal. from the Seventh Ju.
d.cadt District Court, parish of West Feliciana.
KING, j.. Per curiam: The defendant, Mrs
Mary Ann Farrar, conveyed lot of ground in the
town OF Bayou SaIa, with the buildings thereon
OF which she declared herself in the act to be the
owner, to the plaintiff Barcus, in exchange for q
tract OF land of ia acres. From the evidence il
appears that al the date of the exchange the lot
was under seizure in virtue of f. fa, the execu.
ton of which had been suspended by an Injunction
obtained by the present defendant The injunc-
ton was dissolved, and Mrs. Fariar held to have
no claim to the lot. The Sheriff consequently pro-
ceeded with his writ and adjudcated the lot,
operating an eviction of the plaintiff.
This action has been instituted by the plaintiff
to recover back the land which he gave in ex.
change, or its value, which is alleged to be $500,
and the rent OF the property from which he has
been evcted, from the date of the eviction. The
defendant denies in her answer that she was the
owner of the lot at the date of the exchange or
that by the terms of the exchange she was bound
to warrant the title decree was rendered against
her in the Court below for $500 and the rent of the
lot from the time OF eviction, with the right of Salts
lying the judgment by reconveying the tract of land
received by her in exchange, free from encum.
brances created after she acquired it, and she has
appealed.
There are no limitations in the clause of war
ranty. 1t is full and complete. The disclaimer
now made by the defendant of ownership of the
lot of which she declared herself in the act to be
the owner, if proved could certainly be no ground
for resisting the plaintiff $ claim. The only ques-
ton which really arises is presented in bills of ex-
ceptions taken on the trial below by the defend
ants to the opinion of the Court receiving testimony
to show the value of the tract of land given by the
plaintiff in exchange, as the measure of damages.
The defendants commended that the value of the lot
from which the plaintiff was evicted was the cor
rect test of the injury he had sustained. The Dis
trict Judge held otherwise, and in our opinion he
did not err.
The plaintiff had by law the choice to sue either
for damages or for the land which he gave in ex-
change. c. C. art. 1858. He claimed in the alter
native, the land if it could not be restored its
value as damages. In contracts of exchange the
parties considered in the double light of vendors
and vendees, and their obligations are governed by
the rules which apply to the contract of sale. c.
Z. art 1857. In sale the purchaser who is evicted
is entitled to the restitution Of the price, c. c. art
1882. The tract of land given by the plaintiff in
exchange represents the price, the amount of which
in money can only be determined by ascertaining
the value of the property given. Duanton, De
Pechange, No. 543, 545. The value of the property
from which the plaintiff was evicted is no criterion
by which to determine the amount of damages sus-
tanned, that not being the price which he paid.
The judgment of the District Court is therefore
affirmed with costs. w B. and E. Phillips, for
plaintiff and appellee; Ratlif and Cowgirl for de-
PENDANTS and appellants P. s. W.
ITO be eontinued1