
    Grantham v. Bizzel and others.
    From ’Wayne.
    This Court, on bill filad to correct mistakes in a deed, will refuse it's aid, though the mistakes should be obvreus, if the deed was obtained under oppressive circumstances.
    As to the money paid for the land, the bill did not offer a re-conveyance, and pray to have it refunded, and the Court, therefore, held that it could give no relief as to the purchase-money.
    The bill stated, that Joseph Bennet was seised of a tract of land, which he purchased of Jesse Grantham, and on the llfli of December 1.792, conveyed to Complainant twenty acres thereof, describing it by metes and bounds; afterwards Complainant came to an agreement with Bennet, for the purchase of the residue, 137 acres, at the rate of one dollar per acre, and on the 10th of May, 1794, Bennet executed to Complainant, a deed for the same, describing i1 by metes and bounds. The tract of twenty acres was bid off by Complainant, at a sale of Bonnet’s property under execution, and when Complainant purchased the 137 acres, he agreed to give Bennet one dollar per acre, for the 20 acres also: after the piirchase-money was in part paid, Bennet endea-voured to avoid delivering possession thereof, pretending that the conveyance was not good, because his wife had not joined therein, whereupon Complainant brought suit agaiust him, and Bennet agreed to de/iver possession and pay the costs, which he did, and Complainant then paid him the balance of the. purchase-money, and took possession, and cultivated the land during Bonnet’s life, and for a long time, afterwards, anil Complainant avers that it was Beunet’s intention to convey the whole of the land which ho purchased from Jesse Grantham. The bill then charged, that since Beimel’s death, the Defendants, his heirs at law, combining with one Brittain Hood, brought an action of ejectment against Complainant, and recovered a largo part of the land,* that the lines mentioned in the deed for IS7 acres, were erroneous, and left out a large portion of the land, and the heirs availing themselves of tiiis error, entered on the part left out of the deed, and conveyed the same to Hood, who purchased with full notice of Complainants claim. The bill prayed that the mistake might be rectified. — The heirs at law answering, said that they had sold their right to Hood, and disclaimed all title.
    Hood, in his answer, stated, that after the recovery in ejectment by the heirs, he purchased their right, and denied any knowledge of Eennet’s design to sell the whole of the land, but on the contrary averred that Bennet being a man of weak mind, and connected by marriage with Complainant, was prevailed on to convey a part of the land to him under a belief that it wms a conveyance in trust. Bennet occupied the land after-wards, and often in Complainant’s presence said, he had not sold to him. Afterwards Complainant conspired with some of the neighbours to drive Bennet from the neighbourhood, and Bennet was taken and beaten, confined, and ill-treated; and while thus confined, Complainant forced upon him a note of one Sizzle for §40, and the sum of §4 in money, and then alleged that he had bought and paid for the land.
    The cause was heard on Bill, answer and depositions, and the Court’s opinion was delivered by
   Hall, Judge.

No doubt can be entertained, but that it was the intention of the parties, that the whole of Bonnet’s land should be conveyed to the Complainant j but the circumstances attending the purchase, (let Ben-net’s character have been ever so bad.) were so oppressive, as that he could not be considered a free, agent in making the sale. And although in the present proceed-.ngS tjie saje w!,£c|]k })(, made, cannot be disturbed ; yet j the Court ought not to assist in rectifying a mistake, w hich was made in the deed obtained under, such circumstances.

It may be asked, whether Bennet shall retain the money paid and the land also. The answer is, that the bill is not so framed, as that relief can be. given as to the money paid •, if it were, and the Complainant proffered to reconvey the land, which was conveyed to him, an enquiry of that sort would be made ; or if there were a cross Bill, Í should be for rescinding the contract j and decreeing the money paid to be returned. As that is not done, and the Complainant wishes tine contract to be fully carried into effect; for the reasons before given, I think the bill ought to be dismissed.  