In this case three witnesses prove that the' defendant said,- at the sale of the lots of land, mentioned in the pleadings, that he could make a good title to the purchaser. The plaintiff became the purchaser, and gave his bond for the purchase money. It appears from the exhibits, that there is a defect in the title to the lots; inasmuch as the deed' from Mr. Smith and wife has not attached to it the certificate' of the private examination of Mrs. Smith, taken according-*418]a\v to pass her interest. We think, that it is the duty of Leach, the vendor, to procure a proper deed to' be executed, which will pass the fee in the said lots of land from Smith and wife. It appears that the defendant sold the lot as a trustee. The law never compels a trustee to enter into any covenants in his deed, except a covenant against his own incumbrances. The demand of the plaintiff, that Leach should execute to him a deed with- a covenant of warranty is, therefore, inadmissible; The decree will be, that the defendant shall, before the loth day of February next, procure a deed to be executed by Smith and wife to the plaintiff, which deed shall be approved by the master, sufficient in law to extinguisbr the title in fee in the said Smith and wife in and to the lots of land mentioned. And the cause will be retained for further directions.
Per Curiam, Decree accordingly.