Case ID: scl_14/html/0411-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott. J", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David C. Reeder ads. Jacob Craig.
    Upon an action brought upon a note given tor the purchase money of a tract of land, the defendant cannot set up by way of defence, an outstanding title for a part of it, which out standing title had been bought up by the plaintiff (vendor) since he sold to the defendant.
    For if a man sell land to which he has no title, and afterwards acquire a title, he is estopped by his first deed to say he had no title at the time he sold.
    Tried before his Honor Judge Huger, at Newberry October term, 1825.
    ' The plaintiff brought his action on a note given for the purchase money of a tract of land, to which the defendant set up a defence by way of discount, that there was an outstanding title in a third person to about one half of the tract of land. The plaintiff admitted that at the time the pontract was made and the title from plaintiff to defendant executed, there was an outstanding title. But a short time before the commencement of his action, and long after the execution of the deed from plaintiff to defendant, the plaintiff procured the person having the title to the land, to execute a title to the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff, however, had never executed to deffes-dant a second title of the land subsequently acquired by him.
    His honour the presiding )udge, determined that the defence could not avail the detendant, and the jury tound a verdict for plaintiff for the full amount of the note.
    The defendant appealed and moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
    1st. Because at the time the note was given there was an outstanding title in a third person to half the tract of land.
    2nd. Because the execution of a title from the person holding the outstanding title to the plaintiff subsequently to his conveyance to defendant, did not give defendant a legal title to the land.
    
      Bauskett & Dunlap for the motion.
    
      O’Neal and Johnson, contra.
   Nott. J

a man sell land to which he has no title, and afterwards aquire a title he is estopped by his first deed to say be had no title at the time of sale. 1 Harris & M’Henry, 523, Hawkins vs. Hanson. Co. Lit. 47. b, 352, a. Plowden, 434. 10 Ves. 460. Termes de la Ley, 209.

The motion is refused.