Case Name: Abraham Martin, adm'r, plaintiff in error, vs. Alexander J. Gordon, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1858-01
Citations: 24 Ga. 533
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abraham Martin, adm’r, plaintiff in error, vs. Alexander J. Gordon, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 533–540

Head Matter:
Abraham Martin, adm’r, plaintiff in error, vs. Alexander J. Gordon, defendant in error.
Upon a suit for damages for a breach of warranty, the amount of consideration money recited in the deed, is inquirable into, and neither the grantee nor any subsequent conveyancoc, in the absence of fraud, iu case of eviction, is entitled to recover more than the price actually paid for the land, with the interest thereon.
A covenant that runs with the land, does so, by virtue of being, as it were, an-netted to the land. Therefore, if the covenantor lias no' title to the land, tb/e /covenant cannot run with the land. — Benning X
Covenant, from Harris Superior Court. Tried before Judge Worrill, at October Term, 1857.
This was an action by Abraham Martin, administrator of his deceased wife, Sarah Martin, formerly Wardlaw, against Alexander J. Gordon, to recover damages for breach of a covenant of warranty of title to a lot of land.
It appeared that defendant sold and conveyed the land to one John Fife, and the price or consideration, as contained ■and recited in bis deed, was 500 dollars. That Fife, in consideration of 1000 dollars, as recited in his deed, sold and conveyed the premises to Sarah Wardlaw, afterwards wife of plaintiff. There was the usual covenants of warranty in both deeds, and proof of an eviction by title paramount.
Upon the trial defendant offered to prove that the sum paid for said land to him by Fife was but 100 dollars, and not 500 as stated in the deed.
Plaintiff objected to the testimony as inadmissible against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
The Court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence, and plaintiff excepted.
Defendant then proved that Fife only paid 100 dollars for the land, and executed to Gordon his bond to indemnify him against loss or damage on account of his warranty.
The deed from Gordon to Fife was dated 26!h August, 1837, and from Fife to Sarah Wardlaw, 28th Sept., 1833.
The testimony being closed, plaintiff requested ttie Court to charge the jury, that if Gordon received 100 dollars in money lor the land, and also Fife’s bond of indemnity, and executed his deed of warranty for 500 dollars,that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the 500 dollars and iuterest, and the defendant must rely upon his bond of indemnity against Fife.
The Court refused so to charge, but held and charged that plaintiff could only recover the one hundred dollars and interest. To which charge and refusal to charge, plaintiff excepted.
The jury found for the plaintiff- two hundred and sixty dollars and cost of suit
Whereupon counsel for plaintiff tenders his bill of exceptions.
B. H. Hill, for plaintiff in error.
D. P. Hill, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Lumpkin J.,
By the Court delivering the opinion.
In Harwell and another vs. Fitts, (20 Ga. Rep. 723,) this Court held that the recital in a deed, as to the consideration money, was inquirable into in a Court of law, as between the original parties. Indeed this proposition is not disputed by counsel for the plaintiff in error.
This being so, how is the subsequent conveyancee entitled to any greater privileges than Fife, the immediate feoffee of Gordon ? The plaintiff can derive no benefit from the bond of indemnity taken by Gordon, for his own security. Gordon sold the land for an inconsiderable sum, owing, no doubt, to the defect in the title, and took the bond of his vendee to save him harmless. This bond can in no wise inure to the benefit of the plaintiff's intestate.
The result of a careful examination of the authority establishes that subsequent purchasers are affected by the equities between previous parties. If A sells land to B, with covenant of warranty, and B releases A and sells to C, who is evicted by paramount title, A is nevertheless discharged, and damages cannot be recovered against A by C upon A's warranty to B. If Fife could only recover one hundred dollars with interest from Gordon, that being the price actually paid by him for the land, the administrator of Mrs. Martin, •formerly Mrs. Wardlaw, can recover no more.
Actual fraud is not pretended in this case. It does not go apon that idea. The truth is, Fife, the only person to whom Mrs. Martin looked for damages, is insolvent. . She may írnever'have seen the deed from Gordon to Fife. Could it be made to appear, either at law or in equity, that Gordon and Fife combined to cheat Mrs. Martin, the result would I ave been different. The facts upon the record warrant no such conclusion.'
The plaintiff must be content then to recover the actual price paid for the land, with interest thereon, and no more: that being the measure of damages for the breach of Gordon's warranty of title.
Judgment affirmed.