The Court have looked into the cases of Smith v. Williams, (1 Murph. 426,) and Streator v. Jones, (Id. 449,) heretofore decided, and are of opinion that this case is governed by them, and that, consequently, itis not competent for the Plaintiff to give parol evidence for either of the purposes stated in tk« base,
Dickenson v. Dickenson, 6 N.C. 279, 2 Mur. 279 (1813)
June 1813
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
6 N.C. 279, 2 Mur. 279
Dickenson v. Dickenson.
■ Where an absolute deed is made, parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the deed was made under any special trust, and that a valuable consideration was not paid.
The bill charged, that David Dickenson, the elder, in the year 1782, conveyed by deed, a slave to Shadraek *280Dickenson, which deed, on its face, purported to be ab« soltite, and made lor a valuable consideration, whereas, ^j,e ,je¿(j wag m¿d¿ in trust, for the benefit of David, and underlay agreement on the part 6f SJiadrack, that the slave should be conveyed and delivered to David^ or to such person as lie should at any time direct. The bill further charged that no consideration was paid, find that the complainant being a judgment creditor of Dát id’s, the látter did, in 1810, assign all his right in the said slave to him; pf which assignment, Shadrábk bad notice, but refused to give lip the property, insisting that he was hti absolute purchaser for valuable cion-* sideration. '
The answer denied the trust, averred a Valuable con* sideration to .hard been paid, and atledged that the transaction was an absolute sale arid purchase.
The only question submitted to the decision of this Court was, whether parol evidence was admissible, to she w that the deed whs made under the trust specified in the bill, and that a valuable Consideration was not paid*