
    
      Alexander Steel et al. vs. F. L. J. Pride.
    
    1. Plaintiff brought suit on a note under seal, given for the purchase money of atract of land, for which defendant had accepted a deed, and was in possession. The defence, that the land sold to him was the inheritance of the plaintiff’s wives, and that they had not so conveyed as to bar the inheritance, held insufficient.
    2. This case held to be within the principle of Hodges vs. Como?', post, p. 120.
    
      Before O’Neall, J, at Chester, Fall Term, 1842.
    This was an action of debt on a note, under seal.
    The defendant’s defence was, that the land sold to him was the inheritance of the plaintiff’s wives, and that they had not so conveyed as to bar the inheritance. The defendant had accepted a deed from the plaintiffs, conveying the land to him, and was in the possession.
    The presiding Judge thought his defence could not avail him.
    The jury found for the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed, on the annexed grounds.
    1st. Because the note sued on was given for a tract of land sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant, to which said plaintiffs had no title, and having executed a deed warranting the title, the covenant was broken as soon as it was made, and gave defendant a right of action against plaintiffs, which could be pleaded in bar of plaintiffs’s recovery.
    2d. Because the defendant’s plea should have been allowed, and the verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
   Curia, per

Butler, J.

It would be impossible to say, in this case, to what extent the title complained of was defective. The defendant is in the peaceable enjoyment of the land, and may never be disturbed in his possession. It has not been shewn that any one has an outstanding-subsisting title paramount to his own, for it may ultimately be that the plaintiff, the husband, whose wives’s inheritance he has conveyed, may inherit the whole of' the land, or that he may be able to make a good legal title to any part of it that may be brought in jeopardy. Or if the defendant feels any insecurity, he can quiet his title in a court of equity. In principle, the case cannot be distinguished from that of Hodges vs. Connor, and must be disposed of on the same ground. The decision below is affirmed, and the motion refused.

Eaves & Thomson, defendant’s attornies.

Richardson, Q’Neall, Evans, Earle, and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.  