|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
586 NEALE v., HAGTHROP.
for the reasons Already assigned, it will be unnecessary to say any
thing further. The bill specially charges, that Hagthrop and wife,
by a deed dated on the 23d of December, 1819, leased or assigned
a part of the lot on Alice-Anna street, to Matthew Bennett. Of
this special allegation these defendants take no notice; but say,
that the late Anthony Hook, by an indenture dated on the 8th of
May, 1797, conveyed the lot on Alice-Anna street to the late John
Hook. This is an allegation in avoidance of the bill, and certainly
required to be supported by proof. But there is not even an exhi-
bit, 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 moveable property, mentioned
in the deed, this answer is absolutely and totally silent; it says
nothing. And, consequently, as to so much the bill must, accord-
ing 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 failed to deliver, together with the profits
thereof, or the interest on the value; except certain allowances,
and those parts wherewith 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.
Them is no principle of equity better settled, than that such a
bona fide purchaser will not 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 hid 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
