DUVALL v. WATERS. 587

a part of the same lands to Nathan I, Waters, by a deed bearing
date on the 29th of August, 1825; and that these deeds were made
without valuable consideration, and are fraudulent 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 6onafide, 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 feona 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
any thing short of a precise and unequivocal description 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 dependent
upon him. He was in embarrassed circumstances. His younger
daughters lived with him; and his son also was an inmate of his
house, and occasionally worked with him at his trade of a mill-
wright; but it is somewhat doubtful whether his son was then of
lull age or not; the witnesses differ about the fact. Samuel Ratcliff,
WUliam Beck and Philemon Jones, with their wives, who were his
daughters, also lived upon this land, and derived their subsistence