
    JOHN M. PEGUES vs. CLAUDIUS PEGUES.
    When A. purchased B.’s land at execution sale and the purchase money waa furnished to A. for the benefit of B. Held that B. had an equitable es-, tate in the land.
    Cause removed from- the Court of Equity of Anson County, at the Fall Term 1848.
    The facts are, that about the year 1823, the land, set out in the pleadings, was sold by the Sheriff of Anson, as the property of the defendant Claudius Pegues, when the plaintiff became the purchaser, and took a deed from the Sheriff: That the purchase money was furnished to the plaintiff for the benefit of the defendant Claudius Pe« gues: that, afterwards, in May 1823, Claudius Pegues, being indebted to John King, to the amount of about $230, and being indebted to the plaintiff, to the amount of $350, a deed for the’ land was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant Claudius Pegues to the said King, in trust, to secure the payment of the sum of $582, (the amount of the said two debts,) to the said King, who, at the same time, executed to the plaintiff a deed, binding himself to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $350, and interest out of the §582, secured by the deed of trust, when the same should be secured: that afterwards, the defendant Claudius Pegues made several payments to the said King and his personal representative, upon the debt secured by the deed of trust: that, in January 1843, the defendant Claudius Pegues conveyed the land’ to John Grady, one of the other defendants, who had notice of the claim of the plaintiff: that John King died in the year-, intestate : that Charlotte King, one of the other defendants, is his administratrix, and the other defendants are his heirs at law.
    The plaintiff asks for a conveyance of the land by the heirs of King, and a release by the defendants, Claudius Pegues and John Grady.
    
      Strange, for the plaintiff.
    
      Winston, for the defendant.
   Pearson, J.

We are of opinion, that he is not entitled to this relief.

The plaintiffs insist, that if the debt to King has been satisfied, the whole resulting trust belongs to him and he may call for the legal title. This would be true, provided the equitable, as well as the legal estate, belonged to him before the deed of trust. But the price paid for the land was furnished for the benefit of the defendant Claudius Pegues. This gave him the equitable estate, although the legal title was in the plaintiff.

The effect of the deed of trust was to vest the estate in King, in trust, to secure the payment of the debts due to King and the plaintiff, and then, in trust, for the defendant Claudius Pegues, the equitable owner.

If the debt to King has been paid, the trust is so far satisfied ; but if it remains unsatisfied, as to the debt of the plaintiff; and although the plaintiff is not entitled to the specific relief prayed for, yet, under the general prayer, he is entitled to a decree, that the land shall stand as a security for his debt, or such part of it as has not been paid to King, who, by the deed of trust, had authority to receive it for him.

The equitable estate belongs to the defendant Claudius Pegues, or his assignee, the defendant, John Grady, subject to the right of the plaintiff and King to have their debts, or such parts as may not have been paid, secured by the land. Grady did not acquire the legal estate by the conveyance of his co-defendant Claudius Pegues and can only set up his equity.

It was urged by the defendants’ counsel, that the effect of the deed by King to the plaintiff, was to discharge the land, so far as the plaintiff’s debt was concerned, and substitute the mere personal obligation of King.

We think, that deed was intended to be, and had the legal effect of, an express admission by King of the plaintiff’s right to that portion of the amount, secured by the deed of trust; in other words, it was an express declaration of a trust to that effect.

A reference will be made, to ascertain, whether any,, or how much of the debt of King remains unsatified, and the amount of the debt, with interest, due the plaintiff, and whether any, and if so, what payments have been-made to King for or on account of the plaintiff’s debt.

Per Curiam-

Decree accordingly.  