The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for a breach of a covenant of seizin. The breach is admitted, and the only question for decision is, one as to the measure of damages.
The record raises some questions of evidence, which, in our view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider; for the Courts, under our present system, administer legal rights and equities between the parties, in one and the same action; and as soon as the plaintiff established a breach of the covenant, it was competent for the defendant to show any equity which would effect the measure of damages.
As soon as the deed was delivered, there was a breach of the covenant, which entitled the plaintiff to sue, and recover such damages as he had sustained. As a general rule, the vendee recovers the price paid for the land, with interest from the date of payment, but this rule is subject to many modifications; for instance, when there is only a partial breach of the covenant, in consequence of a want of seizin in a part only of the land conveyed ; here, it is said that a *39jury should assess the damages, having regard to the circumstances of the estate, and deducting from the price paid, the ■ value of that portion of the land as to which there was no ■ breach.
And again, if there be an -outstanding, paramount title,, which the covenantee purchases in, he is not entitled to recover the whole of the purchase money, with interest, but only the amount paid to perfect the title, with interest from the date of payment. In other words, where the loss has: been less than the purchase money and interest, the plaintiff' can recover only for the actual injury sustained.
Mr. Sedgewiek, in his work upon the measure of damages,, page 177, comments. with approbation upon the ruling in Baxter v. Bradbury, 20 Maine, 260, which is an authority directly in point upon the case under consideration. In that case, the defendant perfected his title to a part of the land conveyed, after the execution and delivery of his deed to the plaintiff; and he perfected title, as in our case, to another-part of the land after the plaintiff had commenced this-action; and yet the Court held, that the plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages and nothing more, since he had not. been disturbed in his possession. The subsequently acquired title was held to enure to the grantee by estoppel. The ■ same objection to evidence was made in that case as in ours,, but it was ruled to be admissible; the Court saying, “the estoppel being part of the title, may be given in evidence • without being pleaded.” The plaintiff does not stand in a very graceful attitude before the Court, when it seeks to recover the purchase money after its title to the land has been, perfected, and when it has, by a deed in trust, conveyed the-same land to secure the payment of its debts. The bank is-seeking to have the land and also the purchase money. To - allow it to do so, would be grossly inequitable.
*40The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
’ This will be certified, &c.