The heir promised the ancestor, (his father,) that he would pay the daughter the £1000 if he did not fell the timber; and the daughter, his sister, recovered. In the present case the land would have descended to James Browne, but the descent might have been broken by Charles Browne, the ancestor; he agreed that the land should descend to James, but James was to convey it to Basil and Bennett on the happening of a certain event, which afterwards did happen. It would appear strange if a transaction of this nature was destitute of consideration, or that any contract made by James Browne in compliance with the solemn requisition of his father, and with the terms on which he inherited his estate, should be considered as a nudum pactum. The reasoning on this subject seems to be conclusive in favour of the present application; and on examination it will be found, that courts of equity have extended their aid to cases much less favourable than the present. "An heir claiming title to land, threatened to evict the tenant in possession, who also claimed title. The tenant agreed that if he died without issue to leave the land, or £500, &c. This agree ment was carried into effect against the devisee of the tenant." 1 Vern. 48. If an uncle, in consideration of natural love and affection, and in order to gain a reconciliation between the nephew and the father, (whom the nephew had disobliged,) covenants to settle his estate on the nephew. This agreement shall be executed in specie. 2 Com. Dig. 122. 1 Chan. Rep. 158. The present is a much stronger case for relief, than the one just referred to. For these reasons, the complainants think themselves entitled to have the relief prayed for, and that the decree of the chancellor ought to be reversed. Winchester, for the Appellees(a). (a) The Reporters regret that they have not been able to procure notes of his argument. JUNE 1803, Browne VS. Browne THE COURT OF APPEALS, [Rumsey, Ch. J. Mackall, Jones, Potts and Dennis. J.] at this term, (June 1803.) reversed the decree of the court of chancery, and "adjudged, &c. that the chancellor pass a decree thereby ordering and decreeing that the appellee Charles Browne, for himself, and the infant defendants, Robert and Sarah Browne, by their guardian or guardians, to be appointed by the chancellor for the purpose, shall by a good and sufficient deed or deeds of bargain and sale, to be duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, convey unto the complainant. Basil Browne, and his heirs, three undivided fourth parts of all the following tracts or parcels of land, to wit: A tract or parcel of land called Meagreholm, containing 608 acres of land, lying in Queen-Anne's county; one other tract or parcel of land called Ashley, containing 95 acres and one half acre, adjoining to the said first mentioned tract; and one other tract of land called Hobb's Venture, containing 281 acres, lying in Caroline county, which are the same lands intended to have been conveyed by the deed executed by James Browne to Bennett and Basil Browne, and dated on the 25th of July 1777, and ex hibited in the bill in this cause filed-And ordering and decreeing, that the said Charles Browne, for himself, and the infant defendants, Robert and Sarah Browne, by their guardian or guardians by the chancellor for that purpose to be appointed, convey to the other complainant, Andrew Cochrane Browne, and his heirs, by a good and sufficient deed or deeds of bargain and sale, to be duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, the remaining undivided fourth part of the said three tracts of land above described. And it is adjudged, &c. that each party pay their own costs, as well in the court of chancery as in this court." GENERAL COURT, (E. S.) SEPT. TERM, 1803. SEPT. 1803 W. & M. SHARPE VS. GIBSON. as a &c. and In an action of debt on a bond for the purchase mo ney of land sold and conveyed, pa evidence en not be given by a witness that he was sei-ed of any part of the land so sold, in order to rebut the claim and title of the vendor to any part of the land included in his deed to the yea dee, or to show and that the title to non legal DEBT upon a writing obligatory, dated the 29th of August 1797, conditioned for the payment of £9 cur. rent money per acre, for as many acres of land plaintiffs should make the defendant, his heirs, &c. good and legal title to in Island Creek Neck, agreeably to a bond of equal date with the said writing obligatory, passed by the plaintiffs to the defendant, The defendant pleaded, 1st. General performance, 2dly. That the plaintiffs had not made him a good legal title, &c. Replications-To the first plea, performance That the plaintiffs had a good and title before the issuing of the writ of and in 385 acres and 25 perches of certain tracts of land, viz. Rattlesnake Point, Conjuncture, Eason's Neck, Fancy, Eason's Lot, Inclosure and Sharp's Addition, all situate and being in the county aforesaid, and in the Island Creek Neck mentioned, &c. and so having a good and legal title, &c. they on the 18th of May 1799, at, &c. signed, sealed, executed, acknowledged, and delivered to the defendant a good, legal, and valid deed of bargain and sale, for all and singular their interest, &c. in and to the said lands called, &c. agreeably to the bond of equal date, &c. That the said 385 acres and 25 perches, &c. at the rate of £9 current money per acre, amounted to 3466 11s 1d current money, of which the defendant had notice, &c. yet, &c. To the 2d plea there was a similar replication, exhibiting the deed in hæc verba. Rejoinders-that the plaintiffs had not a good title, &c. Issues joined. Plots returned under warrant resurvey. At the trial, the defendant offered Thomas Martin as a witness, to prove that he had, what he esteemed, a well grounded claim to 38 acres of the land which the plaintiff's have located as a part of the lands sold to the defendant, and to this end he proposed to prove by the said witness, that he was seized of the tract located on the plot by the plaintiffs, called Rich Neck, any part of the land so conveyed was not in the vendor at the time of the conveyance Sharpe SEPT. 1803. and that he contended for the lines of the said tract as located, and that by a correct location of the tract called Rattle Snake Point, it did not interfere with Rich Neck; that he had cut trees on that part of Rattle Snake Point located within the lines of Rich Neck, in order to provoke an action of trespass to try his claim; that an action had been brought by the defen dant for the said trespass, and that the same was now depending in this court. The plaintiff objected to this testimony as inadmissible. DONE, J. (a) The Court are of opinion, that the evidence offered by the defendant is not competent and legal evidence to go to the jury to rebut the claim and title of the plaintiffs to any part of the lands to which they claimed title, and which are included in their deed to the defendant; or to shew that the title to any part of the lands so conveyed was not in the plaintiffs at the time of making the conveyance to the defendant. The defendant excepted. Verdicts and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. J. Bayly, for the Appellant. Harper and Scott, for the Appellees. THE COURT OF APPEALS, at June term 1805, affirmed the judgment of the General Court. (a) Chase, Ch. J. absent. Sprigg, J. concurred. Where general performance is pleaded in an ac GENERAL COURT, (E. S.) SEPT. TERM, 1803. THESE were actions of debt upon a replevin bond. tion on a replevin General performances were pleaded. Replications sta bond, or any bond with a collateral ting a writ of replevin prosecuted out of Kent coun condition, the ori ginai need not be produced. Such plea being like a plea of payment to a bond for the payment of money, Reid ty court; that a judgment was rendered de retorno ha- SEPT. 1803. bendo, and for one penny damages, and costs, as by the record thereof from the county court produced. Rules rejoinder, and judgments by default. An inquiry at bar being demanded a jury was charged in both cases at once. The plaintiff's attorney offered to read from the record so produced from Kent county court, oyer of the replevin bond upon which these suits were brought. To which the defendant's attorney objected. BUT it was received by the court. First. Because the original replevin bond is an office paper in the county court, taken and filed by the clerk who issued the writ of replevin. Secondly. Because the plea of general performance to a bond with a collateral condition, is like that of payment to a bond for money; and on a writ of inquiry need not be produced where there is oyer of it in a record. VS Wethered GENERAL COURT, (E. S.) SEPT. TERM, 1803. WILLIAMSON use of WALLIS US. PERKINS. Land taken un MOTION, and rule on the plaintiff to show cause der a fieri facias why the writ of venditioni exponas, issued in this must be specifical case, should not be set aside. described, otherwise the sei zure is void Where the sho writ of venditioni It appeared that a fieri facias issued, returnable to riff return to a September term 1800, and was returned by the sheriff "laid as per schedule, and on hand for want of buy exponas was coun termanded by the plaintiff, & there was an endorsement on the writ ment from the person-Held that ers." The schedule referred to is as follows: "A by way of assign schedule of the property of Ebenezer Perkins, taken plain if to a third with a fi. fa. at the suit of David Williamson, and the same amountappraised by us, the subscribers, we being first quali fied, this SOth day of August 1800. "To dwelling house, griss-mill, saw-mill and fullingmill, and all other buildings belonging thereunto, with ed in express knowledgment of terms to an ac satisfaction by the plaint ff from the defendant thro' such third person; venditioni exponas and a new writ of afterwards issued, and endorsed for third person, and one hundred acres of land joining the said property." the use of such The schedule was not signed by any persons as ap- the return thereto praisers, or by the sheriff. A writ of venditioni ex were quashed |