
    Jackson, ex dem. Danforth and Russel, against Murray.
    where a periandC°fn wiuch Iie has “° time, but after-wards acquires a title to^ thewiiT not’ be permitted to claim in oppo- , . , sition to his deed, from the grantee, or any person deriving title under the grantee*
    THIS was an action of ejectment, for a part of the south half of a lot, No. 28. in the town of Pompey, and was tried at the Onondaga circuit, before Mr. Justice Platt, in 1814.
    The plaintiff gave in evidence an exemplification of a bill - i filed m the court of chancery, by Asa Dan forth, one of the. lessors, in 1804, against* Murray, the father of the defendant, 
      filien Beach and Bussell, and of their answers, and the decree of the court pf chancery in the cause. The bill, among other things, stated, that in, 1792, Danforth purchased lot No. 28. of one Michael Connolly, for 150 pounds, the legal title then being in one Jasper Cropsey, as trustee for Connolly. Soon after-wards, at the request of Connolly, Cropsey executed a deed for the lot in fee simple to Danforth, which was placed in the hands fif Isaac Clason, to be delivered to Danforth..
    
    That in 1793, Danforth, by paroi, agreed to sell and convey the lot to Beach and Bussell, for 1,000 dollars, and they took possession of the lot, and divided it, Beach taking the north, and Bussell the south, half; and on the 9tli of September, 1796, Danforth entered into a written contract to convey the lot to them. That in the year 1798, Danforth gave an order to receive from Clason, Cropsey1 s deed to D, but which in the mean time had been delivered to the administrator of Connolly, who delivered it to Beach, who fraudulently gave up the deed to Cropsey.
    The bill stated that actions of ejectment had been brought by Beach against persons holding under Danforth, and prayed that the suits might be stayed, and that Beach might be directed to convey to Danforth, and for general relief.
    
      Beach and Mussel, in their answer, admitted the paroi contract, and division of the lot, and the subsequent written agree» ment by Danforth, and that Russell had, bona fide, sold his in* ieresf in the lot to Beach, and given him a power to demand the deed from Danforth for Connolly; and that, in 1801, Crop-, sey released all his right to the lot to Beach.
    
    
      Beach and Murray admitted, that in 1801, Beach contracted to sell the south half of the lot to Murray; but no conveyance Was executed; and to secure the payment made, Beach executed a.mortgage to the defendant, the son of Murray-
    
    The order of the court of charicery, in December, 1808, directed Danforth, on payment of the purchase money, to convey the lot in question to Bussell and Beaph, and a reference was made to a master; and after the coming in of the report a final decree was pronounced in June, 1811, which dismissed the bill as to Murray, as having no interest, and directed a conveyance by Dynfortk, of tjm $outk half of the lot, tó Bussell, and the north fialf ig Beach
    
    
      The plaintiff then gave in evidence the deed of Danforth, dated the 30th of March, 1812, made in pursuance of the •decree.
    The defendant gave in evidence, a deed from Jasper Cropsey to Allen Beach, dated 12th September, 1800, of the whole lot, and a mortgage from Beach to the defendant, of the south half of the lot, dated 9th June., 1803. Reuben Murray, the elder, died in 1810, and the defendant continued in possession, after his death.
    A verdict Was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon a case containing the above facts.
    
      N. Williams, for the defendant.
    
      Van Vechten, contra.
   Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. There is no ground on which either of the lessors can pretend to any title to the premises in question.

. 1. Admitting that Danforth acquired a title to the lot by Crop-set/s deed to him, yet oil the 30th oí March, 1812, Danforth, by his deed, devested himself of all claim to the lot; and he then conveyed it to Allen Beach and Jonathan Russell, the south half of the lot to Russell, and the north half to Beacln

'2: Danforlh made this conveyance pursuant to the decree of the court of chancery; the bill was filed by him against Russell, Beach, and the defendant’s father, Reuben Murray; its. object was, undoubtedly, to compel Russell and Beach to fulfil and execute an agreement made between Danforth and them, for the sale and conveyance of thq lot by him, and for the payment by them of thé price agreed to be. given, namely, 1,000 dollars. It is not necessary to notice the unimportant facts in these proceedings; it appears, however, that Russell miBeach' admitted the agreement for the purchase of the lot, with Dan-forth, in consequence of which they made a paroi division of it, and shortly after the execution of the contract for the conveyanee of the lot, by Danforth to Russell and Beach,; Russell, bona fide, and fora good and valuable consideration', bargained and sold all his right and title in the lot to Beach, his heirs and assigns for ever. In 1801, and after the bargain and sale by Russell to Beach, the latter contracted to sell the south half of the" lot to Murray, but no conveyance was executed; and to so* cure the payments made,1' Murray took a mortgage from Beach to his son the defendant.

jt appears by- the decree, that Murray, having no interest in the question, the bill, as to him, was dismissed. The decree is ■ conclusive, as to the subject matter of it; the object of the bill was to protect Danforth from a suit at law, brought against him by Russell and Beach, on his contract to convey to them the lot, on the ground that Danforth had the title to the lot, and was ready to convey, on their making the stipulated payment. If the plaintiff can recover, it must be on the principle, that when. Russell conveyed to Beach, Danforth had not then conveyed to them; but Russell cannot be allowed to say that his deed to Beach conveyed no interest. This point was solemnly adjudged in this court, in the case of Jackson v. Bull, (1 Johns. Cases, 90.) It was there held, that a man shall never be permitted to claim in opposition to his deed, by alleging he had no estate in the premises; and that if a man makes a lease of land by indenture, which is not his, or levies a fine of an estate not vested, and he afterwards purchases the land, he shall, notwithstanding, be bound by his deed, and not be permitted to aver he had nothing. The authorities there cited fully warrant the decision.

This view of the case decisively entitles the defendant to judgment.

Judgment for defendant.  