We are of opinion that the deposition of Samuel Landrum was properly admitted in evidence upon the trial of the issue in the court below 5 and the Jury having found that the conveyance to Matthew Jones, was made to him as a purchaser for á valuable consideration, before the execution of the deed to Thomas Brooks, the decree of the court below must be confirmed and the bill be dismissed with costs.
Alston's Exr's v. Jones' Devisees, 5 N.C. 45, 1 Mur. 45 (1805)
June 1805
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 45, 1 Mur. 45
Alston’s Exr’s vs. Jones’ Devisees
from Hillsborough.
Joseph Landrum being seized in fee of a tract of land lying in Chatham county, constituted and appointed Samuel Landrum, his attorney in fact to sell and convey the same; and the said Samuel as attorney for the said Joseph conveyed the land to Matthew Jones, by deed bearing date the 20th day of April, 1775. This deed purported to be absolute and for a valuable consideration, in (he year 1777, Samuel Landrum executed another deed for the *46[and 'to Thomas Brooks, who conveyed to Joseph John Alston, and lie by his last will and testament devised the sa*c^ land to complainants, who filed their bill in the Court of Equity for Hillsborough District, against the devisees of the said Matthew Jones, ami therein charged that the conveyance from Samuel Landrum to Matthew Jones, was executed for no other purpose than to enable Jones to sell 1 A •• ‘ and convey the land for the benefit of Landrum j that no ... • . , , , . , valuable consideration was paid nor agreed to be paid : an(J that Jones held the legal estate in the land in trust for Landrum and his assignees. That Thomas Brooks was a purchaser from Landrum for a valuable consideration, and those claiming under him were entitled in Equity to have the legal estate decreed to them, &c.
*45A. ass attornmey in fact B. conveys lands terwdsho *46tile trial of 'noted by ^Equby^01 “ whether tlio convey-ancr to B. was made. to him up-"bufeotisi-1" apurehaser before the execution of the con-í>jeL°A i^a COl.p-HUlfc '' ’
To this bill the defendants answered and alledged that it was expressly agreed between their testator Matthew Jones and Samuel Landrum, at the time of the conveyance aforesaid, tliat Jones might cither sell the land or hold it himself, he paying to Landrum the purchase money named in the deed; that Jones had elected to take the laud, and had paid part of the purchase money before the conveyance was made by Landrum to Brooks. It was further insistedthat various artifices wore resorted to, to induce Landrum to convey the land to Alston and that this conveyance was procured by false representations and without any valuable consideration either paid or secured to be paid to Lan-drum, &c. .
The cause was set for hearing, and the court having ordered an issue to be tried, « Whether the conveyance to Matthew Jones was made to him upon a valuable consideration, as a purchaser, before the execution of the deed to, Thomas Brooks the defendants offered in evidence sundry depositions-, and among others, that of Samuel Lan-drum, which was admitted by the court, and the jury found that the conveyance to Matthew Jones, was made to him upon a valuable consideration as a purchaser, before the *47execution of the deed to Thomas Brooks — Whereupbn the court ordered the bill to be dismissed with costs. 'Upon motion of the Complainant’s counsel, the case was sent to this court upon the whole evidence, and upon the question, 11 Whether .Samuel Landrum was a competent witness upon the trial of the issue aforesaid ?”