|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEALE v. HAGTHROP. 587
purchaser with notice. These are the well established principles
of equity upon this subject, (j)
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 referred 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,
will be decreed to deliver up and reconvey to the plaintiff what-
ever of the ten acre lot, thus acquired by him, he may now hold;
and to account for the rents and profits thereof from the date of
the deed under which he obtained possession, with such just
allowances as he may be entitled to; the nature of which shall be
specified.
Samuel Moore and George A. Hughes answer jointly, they posi-
tively aver, that they are purchasers of William McMechen for a
valuable consideration without notice. But they exhibit no evi-
dence of title, nor any proof of right whatever. According to the
rules and principles before laid down, they cannot be permitted
thus to swear themselves into the estate of the plaintiff; and,
consequently, even if their answer were, in other respects, fully
responsive to the bill, it could not avail them as a defence, unsup-
ported as it is by proof. These defendants will, in like manner,
be decreed to deliver up and reconvey to the plaintiff the property
held by them; and be also charged with rents and profits from the
first day of May, 1818, when it appears they obtained possession.
John Cator, by his answer, states, that he purchased of Mc-
Mechen, that which he holds. His predicament and pretensions
are similar, in all respects, to those of Moore and Hughes. Cator,
therefore, will likewise be decreed to deliver up and reconvey; and
also to account for the rents and profits of what he holds, from the
first of May, 1818, when he was let into possession; with such
just allowances as shall be specified,
John S. King, by his answer, states, that he leased from the
defendant Cator; but having exhibited no better title than his les-
(j) t Fonb. Eq, 147, 151.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
