2. Appellant, citing Turner v. Tidwell, 141 Ga. 123 ( 80 S.E. 901); Burns v. Vereen, 132 Ga. 349 ( 64 S.E. 113); Clements v. Collins, 59 Ga. 124; Akins v. Jones, 164 Ga. App. 705 ( 297 S.E.2d 341); and McElmurray v. Marshall, 37 Ga. App. 725 ( 141 S.E. 670), contends the superior court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. In essence appellant argues that, as a matter of law, the evidence fails to give rise to a jury issue as to breach of warranty of title, because there has been no showing appellees were forced to yield to a paramount title as "appellant paid all the payments on the outstanding security deed and the only reason the appellees lost their title was because of their own default on the security deed to appellant."
The Supreme Court in Osburn v. Pritchard, 104 Ga. 145 (2) ( 30 S.E. 656), said: "In a suit for a breach of warranty, the burden is on the plaintiff to show eviction under an outstanding paramount title, or a superior lien upon the land." Also, the Supreme Court in Turner v. Tidwell, 141 Ga. 123 (1) ( 80 S.E. 901), held: "In an action for a breach of a covenant of warranty of title to land, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show eviction by reason of a paramount outstanding title. McMullen v. Butler, 117 Ga. 846 ( 45 S.E. 258); Civil Code, ยง 4197.