Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-03-10

part OF 'hs vile oy inducing the purchase by rosey
- 20 preclude her from the ~ se4lioppF b.r rlgb
The proof that she said few lays hefsre The sale
taat these slaves should Re sold does not connect IL
self with this sale, as The testimony is clear bv
Col. Price and Others that she opposed IA a. ~
! time il was made
We conclude that there is ne legal obstacle In the
way Of her right TO decree for these slaves AZ h.
By the Chancellor. The Rext question ia upou
the measure Of damages to be received hv Posev
from the estate Of his vendor. on account Of the
breach of warranty Of title. Wheiher this shOaId
be the purchase money and interest," the value OF
the slaves at the time Of recovery. Tie Chancellor
allowed the latter, amounting to 81 zoo and charp
ed hin $3.50 for the hire since the termination Of
the life estate By the death Of Mrs. Jackson in
! 1856
| In relation 70 land. this question has perplsxsd
the ours Of the different Siates ba. has been most
| generally settled as in Tennessee that the true
rule is, upon failure Of titls that the measure Of
damages uPoo covenants Of warranty is tie ecnsid-
GRAFTON and interes, Hum 1Ol Hum G53. Ia
suit upon covenants 10 convey the value Of the
land 81 the time il should have been conveyed, is
the rule. But when the subject IS slaves CT other
perss nal Droperiy, We are asare that suy rule
has Q, en- settled IN this State in any adjudiOatsd
case. $40
1t would seem to be the most convenient in ,prse-
tee 70 make the rule The sane in breaches Of war
ranty OF tile % slaves as for land on account CT
uniformity. Ia Rowland %. Shelton, % Alabama
Rep 220, il was so held SO in South Carolina, in
MeHuliin's Rep. lO9, and previously in Mott & Me-
Cord le8. In that case it is said, such is the
mOn Ia rule, l99. We can see no sufficient reason
for uistineuOn as to the measure Of damages in
the lwo nds OF properly. Eaber rule Wsuld work
hard in srme cases II he value at the time Of re
eOyery under better title be adopted as the rule il
v 5uli Wo,k uojustly upon the purchaser in case
where the property had fallen One-hsk from the
time Of his purcasse or where the value lad been
nend hu ANR il
case it would be hard npoa q bona 6ds vendor TO
pay i've times the amount received by him, in con-
sequ' n5e OF great increase in number value at
the time Of the successful assertion of the superior
title. On the other hand, if the rule BE-, that the
price paid vita interest be tie measure that would
likewise be productive of hard In some instsn>
ces. Upon the vendor, when Ihe slaves by depseS I
citation from change Cftimes or ether causes, the
time they are lost, are not worth half so much, and
still he would have to pay the fun amount received
and to the vendee, in Of great enhancement Of
value, rs in she present case The sams reasons 4
with arly, if not quite equal force exist, and have
been urged upon the same question 10 relation 10
land In some instances, in both cases, either rule
works With sppart n If net real Injustice, bot in
general il is the most just and equitabls that
be adopted, perhaps Yet some fixed rule must ex-
sr, Notwithstanding the variety in the results Of s
operations in the different to which it may
apply in practice These difficulties were felt in
relation to real estate, and the books are full Of
reasoning we'll ss decisions hat
Iubject The result has been, that each State has
eliled the rule as best comported with the views Of
heir respective tribunals. And perhaps IL has gen
rally been made uniform in its application to real
md personal prOTerty in the sane State. And ~
ur courts have adopted The principle in application
o land, that the price paid with nteres, shall be
ae mFasure ofdamages, we think it most h and prop
r that the rule should govern in actions upon
OVsnan.s fer the failure Of titles 10 slaves How
ar the existence Of fyaud ON either side would af-
cot the Ques ion, we nee1 not now com ider as We
link il did in this case but that the
or thought be was selling AID the vendee consid-
red that he was buyiog good tile.
We hold, then, that the measure of damages, upon
nsnts warranty fer failure of title to slaves
the consideration money paid aud interest,". as in
be case Of land. But in . case where the lille was
oOd fer cert ain period in this ease for the life
Mrs Jackson, interest should not be counted
nlil the terminsticn ef the life estate BY her death
] 1856. Before that time no hire can Q charged, /
nd it would be ineqaitsble to allow interest Since
aat event, the title failed and the right 10 hire az
le one side as well as the interest On ths other,
ecrues Some cases are to be found in which the
snsiderati0n paid originally, vas reduced in pro-
ortiOn Of the value of tbs life estate, for which
e ti.le vas good, 10 the sbse,ute estate TO Which
70 warranty ex endej But We are not prs-
ned 10 adopt that principle; and slloE the fEll
'nsideraliOn paid, aforesaid.
The decree will be reVeFaed, as TO the rule Of
images, AID the decree for POsey, upon his crOss
III, viii bs aaly for his purchase money aud inter-
4 from The death If the tenant for life, and ths
'cree against him will be for tho slaves, and the
re up to the time they are delivered 10 the COM
Ainant The cast viii be equally divided
CARUIHERs.
A e.rreOt oopy: ]. P CLARK, Clerk.