50 Pa. Super. 100 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1912
Opinion by
In the absence of fraud, the measure of damages for breach of warranty of title or seisin as to part only of the land conveyed is the “relative value” which the part
. The principle is the same whether the comparative advantages and disadvantages are shown by the defendant or are brought out in the presentation of the plaintiff’s own case as they were here. In view of these facts the court was right in holding that the burden of proving “the relative value” of the part to which title failed rested on the plaintiff and that in the absence of evidence from which that fact could be found he could only recover nominal damages.
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.