
    Macon and Bailey vs. Sheppard.
    1. A benefit to a party promising, or a prejudice of trouble to the party to whom the promise is made, is a good consideration.
    2. Where Washburn promised to convey lapd to a trustee, for the benefit of a society of Christians, upo^ condition that said trustee and society of Christians would erect thereupon a house for purposes of public worship Held, that the erection-oi such a house on the land was a benefit to Washburn, and trouble and expense to the trustee and society, and therefore a good consideration intervened.
    3. Where Washburn agreed, by parol, with a certain trustee and society of Christians, to convey an acre of land to such trustee for the benefit of said society, upon condition that they erect a house for public worship, anti said society did erect the house as agreed upon, and Washburn sold and conveyed the acre of land with the tract to which it was attached to Beard, and Beard made a bond in conformity with the parol agreement; Held, that this bond was as obligatory as though it had been made by Washburn.
    4. Where complainants acquire an equitahle right to land, such right can bo enforced against every successive vendee, who may acquire the legal right to such land with notice of complainants’ equity.
    5. The possession of a church by the officers thereof, for purposes of public worship, is as much an actual possession as residence on the premises by any citizen.
    6. If a person purchase land of another, knowing at the time of the purchase that the land is in the possession of other persons, he is bound to enquire into their title, and is affected with notice of all facts in relation thereto.
    William Macon and Laban Bailey, as trustees for the society of Christians called Baptists, filed this bill in the chancery court at Bolivar, on the 6th day of September, 1839, against William C. Sheppard, to divest him of the legal title to one acre of land in the county of Hardeman.
    The bill charges, that a tract of land containing one hundred and fifty-five acres, lying in Hardeman county, was granted to Thomas Washburn. That in the year, 1825, the said Washburn agreed to convey to the society of Christians called Baptists, one acre of said land, and gave them the right of way to a spring adjoining said acre, upon the condition that the said society would erect thereupon a comfortable house for religious worship. That the said society did accordingly build a comfortable house for religious worship, and furnished it with seats. That one part of said acre of ground was selected as a burying ground, and the house was occupied from that time forward as a house of public worship, and the dead of the neighborhood buried in the place so set apart as a grave-yard. The bill further charges, that Washburn continued the owner of the tract of land until the year 1835, the house being occupied still as a place of public worship. That in the year 1835, he (Washburn) sold the tract of land of 155 acres to C. J. Beard, and that he gave a bond to Beard to'convey to him the said one hundred and fifty-five acres of land, but at the same time took the bond of Beard to convey to the plaintiffs, as trustees of the Baptist society, the said acre of land on which the church was erected, the grave-yard laid off, &c., with a right of way to the spring; that this bond was lost; that afterwards Beard sold the land to Dandridge, with a reservation of the acre aforesaid, with right of way to the spring for the church; that in 1837, Dandridge sold the tract to Sheppard, and gave said. Sheppard full and ample notice of the right which bad been previously given by bond to the complainants as trustees of the church; that notwithstanding said notice, Sheppard had, in the latter part of the year 1839, enclosed the said church with a high fence, took out and removed the seats, and converted it into a fodder-house.
    The bill prays, that the title to an acre of ground, including the church and grave-yard, be divested out of the defendant Sheppard, and vested in the complainants for the use of the society aforesaid, and that the county surveyor be directed to survey and lay off the same by metes and bounds, &c.
    Sheppard filed his answer on the 13th day of December, 1839. This answer stated, that the land was granted to Washburn as stated in the bill; that as to the purchase of Beard, he knew nothing; that Washburn had executed a deed in fee simple on the 5th day of December, 1835, to Dandridge for the entire tract embraced in the grant, and that he had purchased the entire tract embraced in the grant for $800, in May, 1837, took a deed and paid the purchase money, and that neither in the deed of Washburn to Dand-ridge, nor in the deed of Dandridge to himself, was there any reservation whatever for the benefit of the complainants or the church. The answer also states, that the defendant purchased without any notice whatever of the claim of complainants to this acre of land, and that he had never heard of the pretended claim of the Baptist church, till after he had received a deed from Dand-ridge.
    The defendant also insisted in his answer, that if the bond alleged to have been made by Washburn to complainants ever had existence, it was voluntary and without consideration, and that it was void against a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of the alleged claim.
    The plaintiffs filed a replication to this answer, and much proof was taken. It appeared that the society of the Baptist church had taken possession of the lot of ground in 1827, built a church and fitted it out as set forth in the bill, upon the understanding therein expressed; that Washburn sold the land to Beard, in 1835, and executed a bond to convey him a title, and required Beard to execute a bond for the spot in controversy to complainants as trustees for the benefit of the society; that Beard did so execute the bond; that Beard afterwards sold the entire tract to Dandridge, he getting fifty dollars advance on the amount he agreed to pay, and stipulating with Dandridge in reference to the acre. Washburn conveyed the entire tract to Dandridge, and Dandridge by deed conveyed the whole tract to Sheppard, the defendant, for $800.— It appeared, that up to the time Sheppard took possession of the premises, in the year 1837, the house had been constantly used as a house of public worship by the society of Baptists, and that Sheppard had heard of the claim of the church previous to his purchase from Dandridge. It also appeared that Sheppard had enclosed the property in controversy by a fence, &c.
    The chancellor, McCampbell, at the November term, 1840, dismissed the bill upon the hearing of the cause. The complainants appealed.
    
      Bailey, for complainants.
    
      Fentress and Miller, for defendant.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Thomas Washburn agreed, verbally, to give the acre of ground in controversy to the Baptist church at Mount Zion, in Hardeman county, on condition that they would erect a suitable house for religious worship. A comfortable house for that purpose- was erected and fitted with seats, &c., for use. In 1835, Washburn sold the tract of land upon which the said acre of ground is situated, to one C. J. Beard, reserving the acre aforesaid. Beard, in consideration of Washburn’s said agreement with the church and the fulfilment of the condition aforesaid, executed a bond to the complainants, binding himself to convey said land to them as trustees fox’ the church aforesaid. Soon after this sale, Beard sold the land to one Dandridge, who had notice of complainants right to said acre, Washburn never having conveyed the said land to Beard. By agreement among the parties he made a deed to Dandridge, Beard’s vendee. In the year 1837, Dandridge sold and conveyed the same land to the defendant. There was no reservation of the acre aforesaid, either in Washburn’s deed to Dandridge, or in the deed of Dandi’idge to the defendant. At the time defendant purchased the land, the chui’ch aforesaid wei’e in the habit of using and occupying the house, on said aci’e of land, for religious worship. The'title bond of Beard has been lost, and the defendant refuses to make a deed for the acre of land, and has appropriated the house, seats, &c., to his own use.

1. The first question is, whether there is any sufficient consideration for the agreement on the part of Washburn to make a conveyance for the acre of land in controversy. A valuable consideration is either a benefit to the party promising, ora prejudice, or ti’ouble to the party to whom the promise is made. 2 Kent, 465. The erection of this house in the neighborhood, for religious worship, was a benefit to the party promising, and put those to whom the promise was made to ti’ouble and expense. In either point of view, therefore, there was sufficient consideration.

2. The fact that the title bond was executed by Beard and not by Washburn, can make no difference. Although the contract was originally by parol, yet having afterwards been reduced to writing, it is equally obligatory as though it had been written when first made. 2 Story’s Eq. 57-8.

3. The complainants having acquired an equitable right to enforce this contract as against Washburn and Beard, they have the same equity against every successive vendee with notice of their claim. 2 Story’s Eq. 92, sec. 784.

4. The only question therefore is, whether the defendant is affected with notice. The evidence is, that the people of the neighborhood, constituting the Baptist church at Mount Zion, were in the habit of using this house regularly as a place of religious worship. In Martin & Yerger’s Rep. 58, this court decide, that the possession of a meeting house by the officers of a church for purposes of religious worship, is as much an actual possession as residence on the premises by another individual. And it is settled, that if a person purchase an estate from the owner, knowing it to be in possession of tenants, he is bound to enquire into their estates, and is affected with notice of all the facts in relation thereto. 1 Story’s Eq. 389: 5 John. Ch. Rep. 29.

Let the decree be reversed, and a decree be rendered, declaring the rights of the complainants, and directing that the county surveyor of Hardeman county lay off the said acre of land by metes and bounds, so as to include the meeting house and grave-yard, and report to the next term of this court.  