
    Carter vs. Pinckard.
    1. To constitute one a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice, so as to hold a title obtained by his grantor by fraud, he must not oniy have had no notice, but must also have paid the purchase money.
    
      (a.) To raise the question of protecting him to the extent of a portion .of the purchase money which he has paid before notice, there must be appropriate pleadings.
    2. A deed obtained by fraud and misrepresentation conveys no valid title to the grantee; and a deed from such grantee to a purchaser with notice, whether the purchase money be paid or not, gives such purchaser no title upon which he can recover the possession of the land from the original grantor.
    3. The verdict is supported by the evidence.
   Crawford, Justice.

[Carte- brought ejectment against Mrs. Pinkard. She pleaded that she had been induced to make a deed to W. T. Pinkard by fraud, and that Carter had bought from him with notice of the fraud. It appeared, among other things, that Carter had paid W. T. Pinkard $100.00 and given a note for the balance of the purchase money, not to be paid until he obtained possession of the land. The jury found for the defendant. In argument in the supreme court, it was urged that the $100.00 paid by Carter should be allowed him, but no such claim was shown to have been made in the court below.]  