DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND. 551

* a part of the same lands to Nathan I. Waters, by a deed
bearing date on the 29th of August, 1825; and that these 587
deeds were made without valuable consideration, and are fraudu-
lent and void. Whereupon he prayed, that they might be set
aside and annulled as against him.

The defendants by their answer alleged, that the deeds were
made bona fide, for a valuable consideration, and they objected,
that the return of the sheriff was so defective, that it could give
to the plaintiff no title whatever.

If these deeds are really valid, as the defendants contend, there
is an end of the matter, since it cannot be necessary to inquire
into the correctness of the return for any other purpose than to
ascertain how far it is available as passing the property of Nathan
Waters; which alone was liable to be seized and sold under the
fieri facias.

The first question then is, whether those deeds were bona fide
and valid transactions or not? The deed of the 17th of February,
1824, which is the principal one, carries upon its face, that which
is calculated to awaken suspicion. It deals in comprehensive
generalities. Such and such tracts or parcels of land by name,
without any particular specification of locations or boundaries;
and, all the furniture and plantation utensils, without any schedule
of them, are conveyed to the grantees. There is certainly nothing
absolutely illegal in this mode of conveying property; but real
sellers and purchasers do not commonly deal so loosely. There is
usually some other security required, than the purchaser's own
bond merely for so large an amount of purchase money as nine
thousand one hundred and fifty dollars in return for an absolute
deed of this kind; and the purchaser too, in most cases, is not
content with anything short of a precise and unequivocal descrip-
tion of the property he has bought and intends honestly to pay for.
At the time this deed, of the 17th of February, 1824, was made,
the defendant Nathan Waters, who lived upon this land, had one
son and five or six daughters, all of whom were more or less de-
pendent upon him. He was in embarrassed circumstances. His
younger daughters lived with him; and his son also, was an in-
mate of his house, and occasionally worked with him at his trade
of a millwright; but it is somewhat doubtful whether his sou was
then of full age or not; the witnesses differ about the fact.
Samuel Ratcliff, William Beck, and Philemon Jones, with their
wives, who were his daughters, also lived upon this land, and de-
rived their * subsistence from it. After the date of the con-
veyance of the 17th of February, 1824, to Nathan I. Waters, 588

the son, and Samuel Ratcliff the son-in-law, Nathan Waters con-
tinued to hold possession of the land, claiming it as his own, and
exercising many unequivocal acts of ownership over it; he sold
timber off it, he rented parcels of it, and gave receipts for the