Leggett v. Lippincott

• Citation: 50 N.J.L. 462,14 A. 577
• Parties: LEGGETT v. LIPPINCOTT.
• Decision Date: 07 June 1888
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

14 A. 577

50 N.J.L. 462

LEGGETT

v. LIPPINCOTT.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 7, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.) Error to circuit court, Burlington county; before Justice PARKER.

Walter A. Barrows, for plaintiff in error. Charles E. Hendrickson, for defendant in error.

BEASLEY, C. J. The question to be decided arises in a demurrer to a plea. The action was for breach of warranty of certain lands. The declaration shows an eviction under a paramount title. The plea sets up a recovery of consideration money, interest, and costs in a former action, founded on the covenant contained in the deed of conveyance now in question, that the defendant in the court below was not "the true, lawful, and right owner of these premises." The circuit court sustained this plea, and there appears to be no reason why this court should not concur in this view. It is obvious that the plaintiff in the suit has already recovered all that he is entitled to for the breach of any or all of the covenants whose office was to secure to him a valid title to this property. It is the established rule in this state that all that a grantee, under ordinary circumstances, can recover, on the failure of a warranted title, is the purchase money, with interest and costs. It is not necessary to refer to decisions in support of so plain a matter. The contention of the counsel of the complainant is that since the former suit he has been evicted, and put to expense, and that, although he cannot again demand the purchase money, he has a right to compensation for the injury and loss thus sustained. But this position, in view of plain legal principles, is entirely illogical. Its fallacy is that it takes no account of the force of the former judgment. By that judgment it was conclusively established that the plaintiff had no title to these premises, so that, if he afterwards retained them in possession, he committed a manifest wrong, the ill effects of which he cannot now cast upon another. When he took a judgment against the defendant for the purchase money, he admitted on the record that he had no title to these lands, and it was a tort in him to hold them against the real owner; and, if he suffered the costs of being ousted, he has no one to complain of but himself. By taking his first judgment, and raising, under it, the consideration money and interest, the plaintiff parted with all interest in the premises; so much so that afterwards the defendant could have maintained an ejectment...