This case is not influenced by the principles that decided the case of Streator v. Jones, (1 Murph. 449.) The complainants allege, that the Defendant, B. Sheppard, contrary to the agreement he had entered into, which was to purchase the property for the complainants, took an absolute deed to himselfi They were not privy to that deed, and of course not hound by it. They are therefore at liberty to produce parol evidence to establish the original contract.
Strong v. Glasgow, 6 N.C. 289, 2 Mur. 289 (1813)
Strong and others v. Glasgow and others.
A agrees with B at a Sheriff’s sale, to bid off the property sold, for B. He bids it off, and takes a conveyance to himself, and then refuses to convey to B. As B is not privy to the oonvej'ance, he is not bound by it ; and he may produce parol evidence to prove the agreement between A and himself.
The bill charged, that William Sheppard, the father of the complainant, being considerably indebted, with a view to make payment, came to an agreement with B. Sheppard, to convey to him a tract of land r for which B. *290Sheppard was to convey to W, Sheppard two other tracts, of inferior value by £800 ; to satisfy which cl if-ference, B. Shcppapd was to pay off all the debts, and jllt[e(llnify w, Sheppard from them. That soon after the agreement, W. Sheppard died, and one of his credi-f tors obtained judgment aqd took out execution, which was levied on his slaves; and at the sale, B. Sheppard, intending to perforin his agreement, bid off twelve slaves, at s®lSS, for the benefit of the complainants ; that lie took an absolute bill of sale from the Sheriff to himself, but that the purchase was really made in trust and for the benefit of the complainants. And the case was sent to this Court upon the question, whether parol evidence could be received to prove the agreement, and set up the' trust for the complainants. And,