¶1 It is true in this case, that the Plaintiff had notice of Overton’s claim to the land; but the Defendant had a much better knowledge of its nature.— It is not very likely, that if the Plaintiff had a full knowledge of the extent of the claim, he would have laid out his money in the purchase. But if the Defendant, with the knowledge he had, thinks proper to sell the land, warrant the title of it, and receive the purchase money, it is then but just, that when the Plaintiff lost the land, in consequence of the Defendant’s having contracted *415 to sell it to Overton, that he should refund the purchase money with interest, as the Judge,, in my opinion, very properly instructed the Jury.
¶2 It is true the Defendant conveyed the legal title to the Plaintiff, but he conveyed it subject to Overton’s equity, and the decree, by which he lost it, was tantamount to an eviction by process of law. 1 think the rule for a new trial should' be discharged.
¶3 Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.