Case Name: The Administrator of Bell against The Administrators of Huggins
Court: South Carolina Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1793
Citations: 1 Bay 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Administrator of Bell against The Administrators of Huggins.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 326–327

Head Matter:
The Administrator of Bell against The Administrators of Huggins.
DEBT on bond, dated the 18th May, 1773, for 1,000/ old currency.
Pinckney, for the defendants,
stated, that the bond in question was given for a tract of land on Santee river, purchased by the intestate, Huggins, in his life-time, and that the indenture of release was dated on the same day with the bond. That part of the land in question, which was valuable rice swamp, was claimed by the heirs of one Daniel, deceased, by virtue of a grant, so long ago as the year 1705, and that Bell, the seller, claimed under a grant many years subsequent to DanieVs. That on the deed from Bell to Huggins, there was a receipt indorsed in a very special manner, by which the grantor promised to refund the con- sj.cleration-money, in case a better title should appear. He She'll contended, that although the receipt, on the back oí the dec»],, would of itself be sufficient to entitle the defendant to a yeriHei, y.t, there was a covenant in the deed, that he, the gra.i'or Bell, was lawfully seised of a good estate infee, &c. upor this he chose to rely on the present occasion. The Is-v', he said, was clear, that an action would lie on this covenant, whenever a defect of title'was discovered, even be-for- eviction by suit at law. (Wood* Conv. 403, 4. Pringle Vo Executors of Witten, anted) And if the action of covenant would lie in such case, the defendants, when sued on the bond for the consideration-money, could plead it in discount, and set up the value of the land taken away by the elder grant against the plaintiff’s demand on the bond.

Opinion:
A surveyor was then called, who proved the lines, and that part of the land was taken away by Daniel*3 elder grant, but that the injury would not be so great as to defeat the main object the purchaser had in view, when he purchased. Whereupon the jury, by direction of the court, deducted the value of the land so taken away by the elder grant, from the amount of the bond, and gave in favour of the nlaintiff, a verdict for the balance.