## Facts

- Murchison Findley conveyed real property to William Robertson by deed containing covenants of general warranty and quiet enjoyment, expressed to benefit Robertson’s heirs and assigns.
- A third party, John Moore, later acquired title to the same property by adverse possession.
- Deason acquired Moore’s interest and asserted that this interest constituted a paramount title.
- Deason sued Findley for breach of the deed covenants, claiming the covenants should be enforceable by an assignee.
- The trial court entered judgment for Findley, and Deason appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether covenants of warranty and quiet enjoyment run with the land so they may be enforced by an heir or assignee in possession when the breach occurs.
2. Whether a person claiming through an adverse possessor qualifies as an “assignee” entitled to sue on the grantor’s covenants.
3. What privity requirements must exist for such covenants to run with the land to successors.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed judgment for Findley.
- The court recognized that covenants of warranty and quiet enjoyment generally run with the land to heirs and assignees in the grantor’s chain of title.
- The court held Deason could not enforce Findley’s covenants because Deason’s title derived from adverse possession, not from Findley’s conveyance.

## Legal Principles

- Covenants of general warranty and quiet enjoyment are real covenants that may run with the land and be sued upon by the heir or assignee in possession when the breach occurs.
- For a covenant to run with the land, it is not enough that it concerns land; privity of estate is required between the covenanting parties and the successors seeking enforcement.
- The benefit of running covenants passes to successors who take through the covenantor’s chain of title; a holder of hostile or paramount title (including by adverse possession) is not an “assignee” for enforcement purposes.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed for the grantor, holding that although warranty and quiet-enjoyment covenants can run with the land to heirs and assignees, they are enforceable only by successors within the grantor’s chain of title and not by a successor to an adverse possessor lacking the necessary privity.


Deason v. Findley, 40 So. 220 (Ala. 1906)