This case cannot be distinguished fronl that of Waldron v. M'Carty. (3 Johns. Rep. 471.) The covenant for quiet enjoyment goes to the possession and not to the title. It appears to be a technical rule, that nothing amounts to a breach of this covenant, but an actual eviction, or disturbance of the possession of the covenantee. (8 Co. 89. b. Comyn's Rep. Anon. 228.) The defendant is, therefore, entitled to judgment.
Judgment for the defendant.