
    Den on demise of Dunstan v. S. Smithwick.
    From Bertie.
    \ fieri facias issued against A. and was levied on Ids lands, which were sold by the Sheriff) and conveyed to B, who conveyed them to C ; but before his sale and conveyance to C, lie contracted to sell the lands to A, who actually paid him the purchase money; and th¿s sale and payment were known to C, before he purchased. In ejectment brought by C, A. shall not be permitted to give in evidence his purchase of the land, and payment of the purchase money, and knowledge thereof by C. This is a defence in Equity, but at haw the only ■question is, who has the legal title.
    The Defendant being’ seised of the lands in question in right of his wife, a writ of fieri facias was let ied thereon, and his interest in the lands sold by the Sheriff, who conveyed to Robert Reddick, the purchaser, and Reddick conveyed to Dunstan, the lessor of the Plaintiff. On the trial, the Defendant offered to prove, that lled-before he sold the lands to Dunstan, had contracted to sell them to him the Defendant, and that he the Defendant had actually paid him the purchase money, and that Dunstan had full knowledge thereof before he purchased from Reddick. The presiding Judge thought this evidence inadmissible upon the trial of an ejectment, in which the only question was,.who had the legal title. A verdict was given for the Plaintiff •, and a rule for a new trial being obtained, upon the ground that the evidence offered by the Defendant ought to have been received, the same was sent to this Court.
   By the Court.

We concur in opinion with the presiding Judge. It would be a departure from long established principle to go into an examination of equitable claims' upon the trial of an ejectment. • A Court of Law is not the proper Forum for such an examination. If the Defendant be entitled to relief, he will obtain it upon application to the proper Forum, and obtain it at the costs of the lessor of the Plaintiff. Let. the rule be discharged.  