
    Lessee of David Erb against Alexander Underwood.
    A creditor on a domestic attachment, wherein the auditors have sold and conveyed lands and subscribed a receipt for the consideration money, maybe a witness to shew that a former sale of the same lands by the debtor was fraudulent. One who has executed a deed with words of general implied warranty, not to be received as a witness to invalidate it; nor to prove that he has not received the consideration money, if he has signed the receipt for it.
    Ejectment for one messuage, one grist-mill, and saw-mill, &c. and 54 acres of land in Dover township.
    
      It was admitted that the lessor of the plaintiff was seized of the premises in fee.
    On the 27th March 1797, he entered into articles to convey the same to Thomas Paup, in consideration of 3200I. payable in instalments ; and conveyed the same to him accordingly, on the 2d May following, by deed duly executed and recorded.
    On the 24th May 1798, Paup and wife convey the premises to Isaiah Harr, in consideration of 1800I. by deed duly executed and recorded ; under whom the defendant holds. On the evening of the same day Paup absconded, and on the 29th May oath was made under the domestic attachment law, and a domestic attachment issued at the suit of Erb against him, on which the mills and lands and outstanding monies were attached, auditors afterwards were appointed who settled the demands against him, and on 3d August 1799 “granted, bargained and sold,” the premises in question to the lessor of the plaintiff in consideration of 10551. subject to a mortgage to Jacob Leather for 950I. —a receipt was subscribed for the consideration money, and the deed was acknowledged in the court of Common Pleas, on the 2d September 1799.
    The sole question to be tried, was the validity of the conveyance to Harr, and whether it was not made with the intention of defrauding the creditors of Paup ?
    Several suspicious circumstances having been disclosed in *evidence, the plaintiff’s counsel offered Thomas ‘Pettit as a witness, to shew other circumstances. He was objected to, on the ground of interest, as being a creditor of- Paup under the attachment, and William Patterson, one of the auditors, was produced to shew that in a conversation with him, Pettit acknowledged that he was to receive no part of his debt, unless the plaintiff succeeded in this suit. U3]
    The plaintiff’s counsel excepted against the testimony of Patterson. He with the auditors have signed and executed a conveyance to Erb, with words of implied warranty, under the act of assembly. How can he be adduced to affect or invalidate the operation of his own deed ?
    
      Per Ctiriam. Surely he cannot, unless the general implied warranty is controlled and restrained by more particular covenants in the conveyance. 2 Bos. and Pull. 13, 26. 4 Co. 80, b. Vaugh. 126. Cro. El. 674. Ambl. 250. We cannot see that Pettit can be affected in interest by any decision in this case, unless he is considered as a party carrying on the suit, and his pretensions to rest on the event. He is now entitled to his rateable part of the sum raised by the auditor’s sale of the mills.
    The defendant’s counsel then insisted to examine Patterson, to shew that the consideration money of the deed had not been paid by Erb, under a special agreement, though the auditors had subscribed the receipt.
    
      Messrs. Duncan, Hopkins, Clark and Cassat, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Bowie and Watts, pro def.
    
   But

by the Court.

The evidence is offered flatly to contradict the written expressions of the auditors, and is inadmissible on every principle of law. No mistake or fraud is suggested here. Could a sheriff, after he has sold and conveyed lands, and signed a receipt for the consideration money, be allowed to establish by his own oath, that he had not received the money, and thereby purge himself of all responsibility ?

The testimony of Patterson was overruled, and Pettit was received as a witness, and sworn.

Verdict for the plaintiff.  