Case ID: d-chip_1/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ivers ex dem. Ivers vs. Chandler.
    If A. convey land to B., and afterwards convey the same land to C , B being présent witnessing the deed and receiving a part of the consideration, C will hold the land against B.
    Windsor,
    September, 1790.
    THIS was an ejectment for lands in Chester. On trial, Ivers, the lessor, derived a title by deed, from T. Chandler, sen. dated. March 13, 1767. T. Chandler, jun. produced a deed of the same land, from T. Chandler, sen. dated July sOth, 1766. There wa's endorsed a proof, by one of the witnesses, before a Judge Lord, who had long been in a state of insanity and now is dead. It was strongly insisted that the deed was a forgery, and there were many suspicious circumstances.
    It further appeared in evidence, that the defendant was present at the time of Ivers’ purchase-that he was a witness to his deed, and received part of the pay to his own use.
   The Conrt directed the Jury, that if they found the defendant’s deed was originally made bona fide, yet if they found that he was knowing to Ivers’ purchase-a witness to his deed-received part • of the purchase money, and fraudulently concealed his own claiin. they aught not to allow so gross a fraud to prevail against a bona fide purchaser. It ought by a retrospect, to be considered as originally fraudulent, and designed for an imposition.

Verdict for the plaintiff.