Summary
The court considers whether a grantee can recover for breach of warranty after paying an alleged paramount titleholder and obtaining a judgment recognizing that title. It holds that an outstanding paramount title alone is not an eviction or breach of warranty, and that a grantee may not invite or bring about assertion of the title and then recover damages from the grantors. The chancery court's decree was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Doss Pierce's outstanding paramount title, without a present right to possession, constituted an eviction or breach of the express warranty.
- Whether Hamilton could recover warranty damages after inviting or otherwise bringing about the assertion and adjudication of Pierce's title.
- Whether the circumstances constituted a constructive eviction supporting an action for breach of the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment.
Holdings
- An outstanding paramount title, standing alone, is not an eviction and does not itself constitute a breach of a warranty of title.
- A grantee may not invite, induce, or otherwise bring about the assertion of a paramount title and then recover damages from the grantors for the resulting eviction.
- The circumstances did not constitute a constructive eviction or actionable breach of the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment.
Key quotations
“But an outstanding paramount title is not an eviction, and does not of itself constitute a breach of the warranty” (344)
“We think that a grantee cannot invite or do anything to bring about the assertion of the paramount title and thereby an eviction, and then recover damages against the grantors.” (344-345)
“The chancellor in his opinion said: "This leaves for consideration the express warranty, on which little need be said. This warranty, reduced to its final analysis, is a promise to protect possession. This covenant is not breached until there has either been an actual or constructive eviction by paramount title. An outstanding paramount title is not sufficient, for it may never be asserted."” (347)
Factual background
A. J. Hamilton purchased the disputed land from Thomas G. Foster and wife through a chain of conveyances originating with G. W. Armour. Doss Pierce, an heir of G. A. Crisler, held a one-twelfth interest subject to a life estate and did not assert a possessory claim until Hamilton initiated proceedings to confirm his own title. Hamilton purchased Pierce's interest and executed a note and mortgage, and a decree foreclosing the lien was entered; Hamilton then sought damages from the grantors for breach of warranty.
Procedural history
Hamilton purchased land through a chain of conveyances containing warranties and later paid Doss Pierce for Pierce's asserted one-twelfth interest. Hamilton sued his grantors, including Henry Armour because Foster's estate was insolvent, alleging breach of warranty. The chancery court concluded that the outstanding title and related proceedings did not constitute an actionable eviction or constructive eviction and entered a decree against Hamilton; the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed.