Case ID: scl_1/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bay, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Administrator of M’Teer against Sheppard.
    Parol testimony is not admissible to vary a deed, so as to make that a trust, which appears to be an. absolute conveyance. SU-ter, -where creditors are concerned.
    TROVER for two negroes. The bill of sale from the defendant to M^Teer, was admitted.
    
      Holmes then stated to the court, that these negroes had been conveyed to M'-Teer, in his life-time, to cover them from a suit in chancery, which CoL MiPherson was about to institute against him. That, no consideration was paid, and it was in nature of a trust, in order to screen the pi-o-perty against MHher sods claim, and offered to call a witness to prove this trust; when
    Zee, for the plaintiff,
    opposed the introduction of testimony to prove a trust against the face of a deed, which appeared to be absolute and unconditional.
   Bay, J.

was of opinion, that parol testimony was not admissible in this case, as it went-substantially to alter or vary a deed under seal, so as to make that a trust which appeared to be absolute. Though, if creditors or third persons were concerned, as to them, it might be admitted to prove a fraud. But in the present instance, the party must not be permitted to aver it against his own deed.

Holmes then pressed for a nonsuit, as no demand was proved before the suit was commenced, and it was not pre=¡ tended that there was a tortious taking.

Nonsuit ordered accordingly, on the ground that no demand was made of the negroes before the commencement of the action.