
    FAYETTE COUNTY,
    March Term, 1798.
    Lessee of William and John Lee, v. Patrick Tiernan.
    EJECTMENT for four lots in the town of Brownsville.—
    
      Simonson, for the plaintiff,
    shewed a receipt from Thomas Brown, the proprietor who laid out the town, dated 1st October, 1786, for 30l. paid by Thomas Neily, in full for four lots, (the lots in dispute) and engaging to make a title when requested.
    On a judgment confessed by Neily, 28th December, 1787, for 790l. 13. 6. to William and John Lee; a writ of fieri facias issued, tested 28th September, 1788, returnable to December term, 1788, for real debt 395l. 6s. 9d. with interest and costs. On this execution, these lots (with a tract of land) were levied and condemned; and, on 28th July, 1789, (on a writ of venditioni exponas, returnable to September term, 1789) the lots were sold to William and John Lee, for 12l. And, on 22d September, 1789, the sheriff acknowledged a deed to William and John Lee for the lots thus sold.
    
      Brackenridge and Campbell, for the defendant,
    shewed a conveyance by Brown to Matthew and William Vanlear, of these four lots, dated 29th June, 1789, in consideration of 46l. and of sundry covenants therein mentioned; and a conveyance of the same lots from Matthew and William Vanlear, for 30l. to the defendant Tiernan, dated 28th January, 1792.
    It was proved, that, in 1787, it was understood generally, that these lots were the property of Neily, and had been inclosed by him; but they were in the possession, or in the care, of one Campbell. Tiernan then lived in Maryland, and did not come into Pennsylvania, till in the spring of 1790; and there was no reason to believe, that he knew any thing of Brown's sale to Neily, or of the subsequent transactions. In 1789, William Vanlear, who was a creditor of Nelly’s, said he had an order from Neily on Brown, to convey these lots to him.
    
      Brackenridge, for the defendant,
    rested on the want of notice to Tiernan of any claim to these lots, other than that which was conveyed to him; and on the principle, that a purchaser without notice will hold his title.
    Simonson, for the plaintiff.
    
      Brown had no right to convey to Vanlear. He was a trustee for Neily; and, previously to the conveyance to Vanlear, the lots were levied for William and John Lee, and afterwards sold to them.
    1 Fonbl. 151-3.
   President.

From the date of the receipt, Brown was a trustee for Neily, and every subsequent purchaser with notice, was, like Brown, a trustee. But, whenever the title to the lots came, by regular conveyance into the hands of a bona fide purchaser, without notice, for a valuable consideration, he must hold it, discharged of the trust.

Vanlear purchased with notice of the trust. He claimed under the trust. His right to this claim under the trust we have not seen. Whatever it was, by this claim, he seems to have got a conveyance from Brown. And this title to these lots he conveyed to Tiernan. But no notice of the trust has been brought home to Tiernan, a regular bona fide purchaser, for a valuable consideration, and (as no notice has been proved) without notice.

The levy and sale on a judgment not against Brown or Vanlear, but against Neily, could not be notice to Tiernan, who derived his title through Vanlear and Brown only. For, in the examination of the chain of title, it was not necessary, and could not be required, that Tiernan should examine any records against Neily.

Tiernan then, being a bona fide purchaser, without notice, and for a valuable consideration, and having a legal title; this legal title remains in him discharged of the trust. And there must, therefore, be a verdict for the defendant.

The jury found accordingly a verdict for the defendant.  