570 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND.

of the bill, and certainly required to be supported by proof. But
there is not even an exhibit, nor one tittle of proof in relation to it.
This part of the answer therefore passes for nothing. As to all the
allegations of the bill, in relation to the negroes, and other mova-
ble property, mentioned in the deed, this answer is absolutely and
totally silent; it says nothing. And, consequently, as to so much
the bill must, according to the rules herein before laid down, be
taken pro confesso.

From what has been said, it follows, that the defendants Hag-
throp and wife, as the legal representatives of the late trustee
John Hook, will be decreed to deliver up to the plaintiff all the
property mentioned in the deed, or to pay the value of so much as
they may have converted, or tailed to deliver, together with the
profits thereof, or the interest on the value; except certain allow-
ances, and those parts wheiewith the other defendants may be
charged; as I shall now proceed to enquire and determine.

All the other defendants deduce their title, either directly or
indirectly, from Hagthrop and wife; except Nathaniel Chittenden,
who traces his claim from the late John Hook; but all allege, that
they are purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice.

There is no principle of equity better settled, than that such a
bona fide purchaser will uot be disturbed by this Court. On the
other hand, it is equally well settled, that he who purchases with
a knowledge of the trust, becomes himself a trustee; and stands
in the place of the vendor under whom he thus claims, subject to
all his liabilities. Yet a person, having himself notice, who pur
chases of one who had not notice, may protect himself by a want
of notice in his vendor. Nor shall a purchaser without notice, of
a previous purchaser with notice, be affected by the notice of his
vendor. And where a purchaser cannot make title, but by a deed
which leads him to a knowledge of the fact; and more especially
where the deed, by virtue of which he takes, recites or directly
refers to that, instrument in which the trust is declared, or from
which it arises, he shall be deemed cognizant of the fact, and a
* purchaser with notice. These are the well established
587 principles of equity upon this subject. 2 Fonb. Eq. 147?
151,

William McMechen, in his answer, avers, that he is a purchaser
for a valuable consideration without notice; and yet he makes an
exhibit by his answer, as a part thereof, of a deed dated on the
9th of September, 1803, under which he takes from Hagthrop and
wife, in which the indenture from Anthony Hook to John Hook,
out of which the trusts arise, is clearly and distinctly reierred to as
one of the links in the chain of the title of Hagthrop and wife.
This, of itself, is enough to shew, that McMechen is a purchaser
with notice. But the proofs leave no doubt upon the subject;
they shew that he had ample notice. This defendant, therefore,