
    FREDERICK ADAMS, EXECUTOR OF JOHN I. TUERS, DECEASED, AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT, WILLIAM DEALING AND CHARITY, HIS WIFE, JACOB FREDERICKS AND JACOB KING, v. JOHN I. RYERSON AND ABRAHAM DEMAREST, PETER H. PULIS AND PETER H. WINTER, EXECUTORS OF ABRAHAM H. GARRISON, DECEASED.
    1. In 1823, T., an habitual drunkard, requested R., at whose store T. was in the habit of buying liquor, to accept a deed for his farm, and pay his debts. R. did not consent. Afterwards T., without the knowledge of R., procured a deed from him to R., to be drawn, and executed and acknowledged it, and took it to R. and delivered it to him, and requested him to put it on record, and left it in his hands. R. did not put it on record, but it remained in his hands. On the 20th August, 1831, an instrument was executed by R., by which he, in consideration that T. pay yearly during his natural life, to R., §18, granted, bargained, remised, released and confirmed unto T., during his life, the said farm in T.’s possession. After this, R. caused the deed to be recorded. T. never saw or heard read the writing of August 20th, 1831. The person who drew this writing testified that before it was drawn, T. had consented that such, a writing should be made, and requested him to keep it in his possession.
    2. The deed was declared void. Semble, a deed, without consideration, from one whose mind has been greatly impaired by excessive and long-continued intemperance, to another from whom he had been in the habit of buying liquor, and who knew of his excess in the use of it, will be set aside.
    The bill, filed September 8th, 1845, states that John I. Tuers, late of the county of Bergen, deceased, in his lifetime, and on or about the 1st day of May, 1823, and for more than twenty years previous thereto, was seized in fee simple of a certain farm or tract of land, whereon he resided, in the township of Franklin, in the county of Bergen, bounded, &c., (describing it,) containing one hundred and eighteen acres, more or less; that said John I. Tuers, on or about the first day of May, 1823, having then been for many years married to Margaret Tuers, his then wife, and who is now his widow, they having no children, and believing they would have no children together, and the said John I. Tuers having become very intemperate, and living in some degree dissatisfied'with and exasperated against his said wife, and for a time separated from her on that account, and being desirous of securing his own estate for the benefit of his own relations by blood, or sneh of them as he might prefer for that purpose, and being wrongly advised that in the event of his said wife surviving him, upon his death without issue, she would unavoidably inherit the whole of his estate, he did, for the purpose of preventing sueh an event, and to secure ins estate from her and to his relations, on said first day of May aforesaid, execute to one John I. Byerson, a deed of bargain and sale of the above described lands in fee simple, which deed bears dale on the first day of May, 1823, and purports to be in consideration of $3000, to the said John I. Tuers, paid by the said John I. Rycrson, and to convey said lands to said John I. Byerson in fee simple for his own use; that said sum of $3000, or any other consideration, was not paid, or secured to be paid, by said .John I. Byerson to said John I. Tuers, either at the giving of said deed, or at any time afterwards; and that said deed was not intended to convey said property to said John I. Rycrson for his own use, but for the use only of said John I. Tuers and his heirs or devisees, and for the purpose of preventing the same from falling into the hands of his said wife, as above mentioned; and charges that said deed, so given without consideration, and for the purpose aforesaid, did not convey said lands to said John i. Byerson, but that, both at law and in equity, the uses of said conveyance resulted to said John I. Tuers and to his heirs and devisees.
    Thai said John 1. Tuers, from the time of said conveyance until the time of his death, which was on or about the 7th day of April, 1842, continued in peaceable and quiet possession of said lands, using and claiming them as his own, and not in any •■•"y recognizing ¡he title of said John I. Byerson thereto,and that said John I. Ryerson has not, since the execution of said deed, ■exercised, or attempted to exercise, any control over said property, nor in any way attempted to obtain possession by law, either in the lifetime of said John I. Tuers, or since his death, but that it still remains in possession of Margaret Tuers, the widow of said Johu I. Tuers.
    That said John I. Tuers remained in possession of said lands until the time of his death, claiming the same as his own, and maintaining that said John I. Ryerson had no right or claim thereto, and that the conveyance which he once executed to him for the said lands had been given up and canceled, and that said John I. Tuers, in his last illness, on the 26th day of April, 1842, made his last will and testament, and at that time was not seized, nor did he pretend to be seized, of any lands except the lands above mentioned, and by said will, duly executed and proved to pass real estate, he directed his executors to sell all his real estate, and, out of the moneys arising from the sale, to pay the complainant, Frederick Adams, $300, and to divide the residue of the proceeds thereof equally among the lawful heirs of his three sisters — Rachel, who was the wife of Michael Moore, Mary, who was the wife of Jacob Fredericks, and Leah, who was the wife of Johu King — and appointed Martin Van Houten, Jr., and the complainant, Frederick Adams, executors thereof; which executors proved said will before the surrogate of the county of Bergen, and have probate thereof.
    That said Martin Van Houten, Jr., died after the granting of said probate, and that the complainant Charity Dealing, the wife of William Dealing, is the daughter of said Rachel, who was the wife of Michael Moore, and was, at the date of said will, and now is, the only descendant and heir-at-law of said Rachel, who was the wife of Michael Moore; that the complainant Jacob Fredericks, is the son of Mary, the wife of Jacob Fredericks, in said will mentioned, and now is, and was at the time of the date of said will, the only descendant and heir-at-law of said Mary, the wife of Jacob Fredericks.; and that the complainant Jacob King is the son of Benjamiu King, now deceased, which Benjamin King, at the date of said will, and the death of said testator, was the son and only descendant and heir-at-law of Leah, the -wife of John King, in said will mentioned ; that since the death of said John I. Tuers, said Benjamin King has died, leaving Jacob King, one of the complainants, his son and only descendant and heir-at-law, and having duly made and published his last will and testament, whereby he devised and bequeathed all his estate, real and personal, to the complainant, Jacob King, and appointed him sole executor thereof.
    That said John I. Ryerson, on the 13th day of August, 1831, intending some future and secret fraud and mischief, left said deed to him at the office of the clerk of the county of Bergen to be recorded, and that the same was recorded in Book G 3 of Deeds for Bergen county, on pages 54 and 55, but that said recording was unknown to said John I. Tuers, who supposed said deed to be surrendered and of no effect; and that said John I. Ryerson did not pretend to said John I. Tuers, at that time, to have any claim to said land, but that said John I. Tuers occupied the same, and leased part thereof to John S. Forshee, a relation of said John I. Ryerson, for the term of fifty years, with the knowledge of said John I. Ryerson.
    That said Ryerson, on or about the 18th October, 1837, having for some time been indebted to one Abraham H. Garrison for money borrowed of him, and which was secured to the satisfaction of said Garrison, made and executed to said Garrison by the name of Abraham Garrison, and without his knowledge, a deed for the lands above, described, excepting thereoutthe seven acres so leased by said John I. Tuers to said John S. Forshee, and then offered said deed to said Abraham H. Garrison in payment, or as collateral security for said loan; he, the said Ryerson, well knowing that the conveyance to him, though absolute on its face, was without consideration and worthless, and supposing that, by conveying or mortgaging said lands to any third person for a bona fide debt or consideration he could render the original conveyance valid, and have the said lands appropriated to his own use; and that said Abraham H. Garrison, well knowing said conveyance from John I. Tuers to John I. Ryerson to be without consideration, and by the meaning of the parties thereto, as well at law as in equity, to be for the use of said John I. Tuers, refused to accept such deed, eithei as payment or collateral security ; but that said John I. Ryerson, after repeated importunities, persuad. <1 the said Abraham H. Garrison to accept the possession of said deed, said Garrison at the same time declaring that said deed was of no value; and said John I. Ryerson, on or about the 9th day of October, 1835, procured said deed to Abraham H. Garrison to be recorded in the office of the clerk of the county of Bergen.
    That said John I. Tuers had, on or about the 19th day of June, 1822, executed a mortgage on said lands, above described, to Baltye Demarest, to secure the payment of $ 100, with interest, and that said mortgage had been assigned to one Albert N. Van Voorhis, who, on or about the term of-, 1840, filed his bill in this court for the foreclosure and satisfaction of the same, and made said Abraham H. Garrison, as well as said John I. Ryerson, a party defendant in said suit; that said John I. Ryerson did not appear in said suit or answer said bill; that said Abraham H. Garrison, knowing the invalidity of the conveyance to said John I. Ryerson, refused to set up his claim to said lands,' either as grantee or mortgagee, or to answer said bill, but, at the solicitation of said John I. Ryerson, permitted him to take said deed; and that said John I. Ryerson thereupon employed counsel, who filed an answer in the name of said Abraham H. Garrison, but which was not sworn to by him; that to said bill none of these complainants .were made parties, except Frederick Adams, as executor of said John I. Tuers, but who, supposing the only matter which could be contested in said suit was the mortgage to Baltye Demarest, then held by Albert N. Van Voorhis, did not appear, but made default; that, in said suit, a decree was made for the sale of said mortgaged premises, and that, after paying the mortgage to the complainant, the sum of $1328 67 should be paid to said Abraham H. Garrison, as the amount due to him on the debt which it was alleged said deed was given to secure by way of mortgage; and thereupon, on application of said Frederick Adams, said decree was opened and set aside, so far as relates to the payment of the proceeds of the sale, after-paying the debt and costs of the complainant, with leave to contest said conveyance to John I. Ryerson and to Abraham H. Garrison, by filing an answer in said suit or by filing a cross-bill in this court.
    
      That said Abraham H. Garrison, after said decree, died, having made his last will in due form to pass real estate, and having appointed Abraham Demarest, Peter H. Pulis, and Peter BL Winter executors thereof, who have probate of the same, and that he thereby directed his said executors to sell and convey all his real estate.
    That the complainants are unable to sell said real estate, on account of said conveyances so made by said John I. Tuers to said John I. Ryerson, and by said John T. Ryerson to said Abraham H. Garrison, and on account of said John I. Ryerson giving out and pretending that the same are valid, and were made in good faith, and that he intends to claim and take possession of said property under the same, and that they, or some person for them, have frequently and in' a friendly manner applied to said John I. Ryerson, and to said Abraham H. Garrison, in his lifetime, and to his above-named executors, since his death, and requested them to deliver up their said conveyances of said lands to them, and to re-convey said lands to these complainants, for the uses declared in said will of said John I. Tuers, deceased.
    Tlie bill prays that said deed from John I. Tuers to said John I. Ryerson may be declared void and of no effect as against said J ohn I. Tuers and the complainants, and that it may be decreed that the use of the lands therein conveyed resulted to said John I. Tuers forthwith, and vested the same in him in fee simple, and that said defendants may be decreed to re-convey said lands to tiie complainants, or one of them, for the use of the will of said «John I. Tuers, and for such other and further relief as the nature of the ease may require.
    To this bill, John I. Ryerson put in the following answer:
    That he admits that John I. Tuers, deceased, in his lifetime, and on or before the 1st day of May, 1823, and for some years before that time, was seized in fee simple of the farm, as stated in the complainant’s bill; that at that time, and for many years before, the said Tuers had been married to Margaret Tuers, his then wife,and who is now his widow, and they, having no children, lived very unhappily together; he lived part of the time with her, and at some period has lived separate from her, and, having no relations in whose interest he felt any anxiety, he determined that his estate should not go to his wife, or to any of either her or his relations; and that the said John I. Tuers being, at that time, somewhat in debt, applied to this defendant, and offered to give this defendant a deed for bis said property, provided this defendant would pay the debts of him, the said John I. Tuers;• that this defendant did not, at first, consent to the said agreement, whereupon the said John I. Tuers, without the knowledge or consent of this defendant, procured a deed to be drawn and acknowledged, and brought the same to this defendant, and insisted upon this defendant’s putting it upon record; that thereupon the said John I. Tuers went away, leaving the said deed in this defendant’s hands. But this defendant denies that the said John I. Tuers, either at this time or at any time afterwards, proposed to give the said deed to this defendant, or that he was ever advised by this defendant to do so, because, in the event of his wife surviving him without issue, she would inherit the whole of his estate, or that he did it for the purpose of securing the said estate to his own relations, but, on the contrary thereof, the said John I. Tuers declared to this defendant that he would not leave his property to either his own or his-wife’s relations; that this defendant admits that the consideration stated in said deed was $3000, but this consideration was put in as a nominal matter, and this defendant was not to pay the said sum of $3000. He admits that the said John I. Tuers, from the date of said conveyance until he died, continued in possession of the said farm.
    He saith that the said deed remained in this defendant’s hands for a considerable period; that the said John I. Tuers repeatedly requested this defendant to put the said deed on record, and that, on or about the 20th day of August, 1831, the said John I. Tuers came to this defendant, and insisted that this defendant should accept the said deed and pay his debts, declaring that hi? family should not have his property, and that if this defendant would not take the deed and pay his debts, or relieve him from trouble on account of his debts, he would give a deed to some stranger; that, being thus urged by the said John I. Tuers, this-defendant agreed to and with the said John to take a deed for the said property, and to pay the debts of the said John, which he then owed, except a debt of $100 to one Baltye Demarest, for which said John had given a mortgage on the said farm, and which debt, being an encumbrance on the said property, this defendant agreed to pay the interest upon, and, if necessary, to pay the principal, if it should be required, so that the said John should not be troubled with the same; that thereupon the said John I. Tuers and this defendant agreed to the same, and this defendant agreed to allow the said John to live upon the said property, and to execute to him a lease, so as to permit the said John to occupy and enjoy the same during his natural life, as hereinafter stated ; that then the said John and this defendant agreed to go to one Garret Van Dien and see whether the deed already given was sufficient, and if not, to get him to draw a new deed and lease; that thereupon (he said Garret Van Dien informed said John and this defendant that the old deed was as good a deed as he could draw, and they then instructed the said Van Dien to draw a lease from this defendant to the said John I. Tuers; which lease the said Van Dien then drew, and this defendant then signed and sealed the same, and which lease is in the words and figures, or to the purport and effect following, that is to say: “This indenture, made the twentieth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, between John I. Ryerson, of, (&c.,) of the first part, and John I. Tuers, of, (&c.,) party of the second part, for and in consideration that the said John L Tuers must pay the sum of eighteen dollars yearly, and every year, during his natural life, unto the said John I. Ryerson, party of the first part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, remised, released, and confirmed unto the said party of the second part, in his actual possession now being, and to him for and during his natural life, all that certain tract or lot of land and premises situate, (&c.,) containing about one hundred and eighteen acres, be the same more or less, except thereout the privilege to the said John I. Ryerson, party of the first part, to cut and carry away timber, at any time he sees fit, from said premises — together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim, and demand whatsoever, of the said party of the first part of, in, and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances — to have and hold the said lot of land and premises above described, to the said party of the second part, for and during his natural life, except thereout as is hereinbefore excepted; also to pay the aforesaid sum of eighteen ■dollars yearly, and every year, during his natural life, as it is hereinbefore expressed.”
    He saith that the said John I. Tuers then and there requested the said Garret Van Dien to keep the said lease for him, and requested him, also, to take the said deed to the clerk’s office to be recorded ; and the said Van Dien accordingly took the said deed to the clerk’s office, on the 30th day of the same month of August, aforesaid, and the same was then recorded in the clerk’s office of the county of Bergen ; and the said Garret Van Dien kept the said lease in his custody, and it remained in his custody at the death of the said John I. Tuers; and this defendant insists that the whole of said proceedings were done in good faith and bona fide.
    
    He saith that after receiving the said, deed as aforesaid, and executing the said lease, he, in pursuance of said agreement and purchase of said property, as aforesaid, commenced paying the debts of the said John I. Tuers; and that at the time of receiving the said deed, the said John was indebted to the said John I. Ryerson, Jr., on a promissory note, bearing date June 11th, 1829, for seventy dollars, with interest, and also on another note for thirty dollars, with interest, dated the 1st day of November, of the same year, and also another note for twenty dollars, with interest, dated March 28th, 1830, and also the said mortgage and some small debts besides; that this defendant took up the said three notes, and paid, at first, three years’ interest on the said mortgage, and afterwards, as he thinks, two years’ interest further on said mortgage; but for greater certainty, this defendant begs leave to refer to the endorsements on the same; and that this defendant has paid all the debts of the said John I. Tuers, so far as he has heard of them, except one claim, which the said John I. Tuers said was not an honest claim, and which he would not allow this defendant to pay, and which was an old and outlawed claim, and which the holder of the claim never thought fit to prosecute.
    He admits that the said John I. Tuers continued to occupy the said farm, under said lease, until he died, and that this defendant did not attempt to exercise any control over said property during the lifetime of said John I. Tuers, except that, this defendant lias, at different limes during the lifetime of said John I. Tners, entered on said farm, and cut and carried away wood and timber from the said farm, according to and in pursuance of the right reserved to this defendant in the said lease; and the said John I. Tuers never paid any rent on said lease, and this defendant never called on him for any rent.
    He admits that the said John I. Tuers did lease a part of the said farm to John S. Forshee for fifty years, but that the said lease was made to the said John S. Forshee on the 12th day of March, 1831, and before this defendant became the owner of the same, as before stated, and that the part so leased to the said John S. Forshee contained seven or eight acres.
    He saith that, being indebted to one Abraham H. Garrison in a sealed bill and a promissory note, given by this defendant to the said Abraham H. Garrison, the sealed bill for the sum of $991, with interest from date, and bearing date the first day of May, 1834, and the promissory note for $50, with interest, bearing date the 20th day of January, 1837, the said Abraham IT. Garrison, on the 18th. day of October, 1837, conveyed the said land and premises, excepting thereout the seven acres, more or less, leased by said John I. Tuers to John S. Forshee, as before stated ; but this defendant insists that the said conveyance to Abraham H. Garrison was intended as a mortgage, and that this defendant is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the said property, after paying the mortgage of Albert N. Van Voorhis and the amount due to the executors of Abraham Garrison.
    He admits that the said John I. Tuers executed a mortgage to Baltye Demarest, as stated in the complainants’ bill, and that the said mortgage has been assigned to Albert N. Van Voorhis, and that he filed his bill to foreclose said mortgage, as is in the' complainants’ bill stated.
    He admits that after a decree was entered in said suit, the said Abraham H. Garrison died, leaving a last will and testament, and having appointed Abraham Demarest, Peter H. Pulis and Peter H. Winter executors of said will, who have proved the said will, and that he thereby directed his said executors to sell and convey all his real estate, as this defendant has heard, but he has no knowledge of this, except from hearsay.
    He admits that the said John I. Tuers is dead, and that he had no property at the time of his death, so far as this defendant knows; and this defendant has heard, and believes it to be true, that the said Frederick Adams, during the last illness of the said John I. Tuers, when he was enfeebled by age and infirmity, represented to the said John I. Tuers that the deed he had given to this defendant was invalid, and that this defendant had absconded and left this part of the country, and wished him to make a will, giving to him, the said Frederick Adams, some part of his property; that the said John I. Tuers for a long time refused, stating that he had already conveyed the same to this defendant, but that, finally, overcome by the importunities of the said Frederick Adams, who was not related to the said John I. Tuers, but who married a distant relative of the said Margaret Tuers, this defendant has heard that the said John I. Tuers did make a will, as stated in the complainants’ bill ; but this defendant insists that the said will of the said John I. Tuers, so far forth as regards the said property of this defendant so conveyed by the said John I. Tuers to this defendant, is inoperative, because the right of the said John I. Tuers in the same, being for his natural life, was determined by the death of the said John I. Tuers, and that neither the said Frederick Adams nor any of the complainants have any interest in the land so conveyed by the said John I. Tuers to this defendant.
    He saith that he has never had possession of the lands contained in said deeds, but that, shortly after the death of the said John I. Tuers, this defendant took his deed to his counsel, and advised with him as to the mode of recovering possession of the said lands; and that his counsel, understanding that the legatees and devisees under said will, or some one of them, intended to contest the validity of this defendant’s deed, advised this defendant that the better way would be to get Mr. Abraham H. Garrison to foreclose his mortgage, and make all the said persons parties, so that the rights of all the said parties could be determined in such suit, and the question put at rest forever; whereupon the said Abraham H. Garrison sent his papers to the said counsel; but, owing to the difficulty of ascertaining who were the legal devisees and legatees mentioned in said will, and where they resided, the said information could not be obtained before the said Albert N. Van Voorhis filed his bill to foreclose his mortgage, and that this was the only reason why this defendant did not proceed to get possession of the said farm.
    He saith that this defendant, being justly and truly indebted to the said Abraham H. Garrison in two promissory notes — one for $991 and some interest, and the other for $50, and for which the said Abraham H. Garrison had no security, this defendant, in order to secure him for the said sums of money, executed to him a deed for the said property, but which it was agreed, between the said Abraham H. Garrison and this defendant, should be held as a mortgage only, and which bears date the 18th day of October, 1837, and which was recorded on the 9th day of October, 1838, in the clerk’s office of Bergen county; but this defendant denies that the said Abraham H. Garrison refused to receive said deed as security, but insists that he did receive it, and held it until his death, as security for his said debt.
    Answer of JDemarest and others:
    That they admit that John I. Tuers, deceased, and on and before the 1st day of May, 1823, and for some years before that time, was seized in fee simple of the farm, as stated in the complainants’ bill; that, at that time, and for many years before that time, the said John I. Tuers had been married to Margaret Tuers, his then wife, and who is now his widow; and these defendants have heard, and believe, that they, having nc children, lived very unhappily together, and that they at one time were separated.
    
      They admit that they have heard that the said John I. Tuers, many years ago, but at what time is not known to these defendants, conveyed the said farm to the said John I. Ryerson in fee simple ; but, as to the time of executing or delivering said deed, or of the consideration of said deed, these defendants have no knowledge, nor have they any knowledge of what the said Abraham H. Garrison had heard or knew about the same, at the time of his receiving the said deed from the said John I. Ryerson ; but these defendants have heard the said Abraham H. Garrison, since he so received the said deed, and while he held the same, say that he. held the said deed as security for a sealed bill and a note given to him by the said John I. Ryerson ; and these defendants insist that the said Abraham H. Garrison, at the time he so received the said deed as security for the said debt, was a bona fide holder of the same, without notice of the consideration of said deed.
    They say that they have heard and believe that the said deed was given by the said John I. Tuers in good faith and bona fide, and that the said Tuers, in order to secure to himself the use of the said property during his life, took from the said Ryerson a lease, which, by its terms, gave to the said Tuers the right to use and enjoy the said farm during his natural life.
    They say that they believe the said John I. Tuers remained in possession of said farm until his death, and that some time after his death the said Abraham H. Garrison sent his papers to counsel to foreclose his said deed, considering it as a mortgage, and that they have heard that the said John I. Tuers made a will during his last illness, as set forth in the complainants’ bill; and these defendants have heard that the legatees and devisees in said will intended to contest the validity of said deed from said John I. Tuers to said John I. Ryerson, and that the said Abraham H. Garrison put his papers in the hands of counsel to foreclose his said mortgage, so as to settle all questions which might be raised regarding the validity of said deed; but, as to the terms of said will, or as to the names of the legatees and devisees in said will named, these defendants have no knowledge, except from hearing.
    They admit that they have heard that the said, deed from the said Jolrn I. Tuers to the said John I. Ryerson was recorded, as is in the complainants’ bill stated, and- that they have heard and believe that it was left in the clerk’s office to be recorded by Garret Van Dien, Esq., at the request and by the direction of the said John I. Tuers.
    They say that the sealed bill and note, before mentioned as being the debt which the said deed to the said Abraham H. Garrison was given to secure, are now in these defendants’ possession'; that the said sealed bill bears date the 1st day of May, 1834, given by said John I. Ryerson, whereby, for value received, he promised to pay or cause to be paid to the said Abraham H. Garrison, or order, the just and full sum of $991, with lawful interest from the date until paid, $340 of the said sum to be specie, and which was sealed with the seal of the said John I. Ryerson; and that the note, being the other part of said debt, was dated the 20th day of January, 1837, given by said John I. Ryerson, whereby, for value received, he promises to pay, or cause to be paid, unto the said Abraham Garrison, or order, the just and full sum of $50, on demand.
    They say that they have heard that the said John I. Tuers was at times intemperate, but whether he was so at or about the time the said deed was given by said John I. Tuers to John I. Ryerson is not known to these defendants.
    They say that they have never heard, save from the bill, that the said John I. Tuers gave the said deed to the said John I. Ryerson under the impression or advice that if he should die without issue, his wife would inherit his estate.
    They say that they do not know whether the said John L Ryerson made the said deed to the said Abraham Garrison without his knowledge, but these defendants know that the said Abraham Garrison held the said deed in his hands for many years before his death, and at the time of his death the said deed was in his counsel’s hands.
    They say that they have never heard, save from the bill, that the said Abraham H. Garrison refused to receive the said deed, either as payment or collateral security, but these defendants have heard him frequently say that he held the same as security for his said debt.
    
      They say that they have heard that Baltye Demarest held a mortgage given by said John I. Tuers, and that the same was assigned to Albert N. Van Voorhis, but these defendants had never heard of the same until the subpoena was served upon the filing of his bill in chancery, and these defendants have heard that said Abraham H. Garrison filed his answer in said suit.
    They say that after the decree in said cause, the said Abraham H. Garrison died, leaving a last will and testament in due form to pass real estate, and that he appointed these defendants executors of said will, and that they' have probate of said will, and that in his said will he directed his executors to sell his real estate.
    Testimony for complainants:
    . William H. Winters. — I am sixty-eight years old, and have always lived in Franklin township ; I knew John I. Tuers in his lifetime; knew him more than thirty years before his death ; in May, 1823,1 knew him, and heard of his having given a deed to John I. Ryerson — the time when, I do not know; at that time John I. Tuers was a very intemperate man ; had been so all along; he said he must go to hell, and that he did not care what he was doing; about, or at that time, he was frequently drunk, so that he was not able to do anything; after the deed was given he got a little better, did not drink so much, but this was some time after giving the deed; at the time, and before giving the deed, he was very generally drunk; I lived about a mile from him at that time; Tuers lived about one-half mile from Ryerson’s; at that time John I. Ryerson kept liquor to sell, and Tuers went there to get his liquor; after the hubbub in his family, and his wife went to Paterson, Tuers went to Ryerson's and stayed there; Ryerson kept a grocery, and sold liquor; I have seen Tuers drinking there, and that he had too much liquor; 'I don’t know that Tuers lived there, but saw him there off and on; Ryerson told me that Tuers was not fit to go to church, and he had given him a new suit of satinet, which his daughter Jenny made for him; Tuers did not stay as much as a year at Ryerson’s; while at Ryerson’s he was not a beast in drinking, that I saw; not so that he-laid by it; but he had too much liquor; he was rash in talking; can’t say whether he was worse while there than he had been before; I have heard say that before this Tuers had a quarrel with his wife, and she had left him, and gone to Lake’s, at Paterson; Tuers and his wife, as long as I knew them, were quarreling with each other; I know the farm that Tuers lived on; he lived on the farm till he died, and for as long back as I can remember; since his death, his widow and Abraham Lake have lived on it, and still live there; I never heard John I. Ryerson say for what Tuers had given him the deed, but he talked to me about it afterwards, one day, on my field, and told me he had a good deed for the property from John Tuers, as good as anybody’s deed, but did not say whether Tuers had given it or sold it to him ; I never heard that he had given anything for the deed ; can’t say how long after the deed was given, it was that Ryerson told me this on my field — whether ten years, or how long after; at that time, Ryerson told me that his children might as well have it as Lake’s children, as they always had a nest there to eat him up. [The solicitor objects, on the part of the executors of Abraham H. Garrison, to all the declarations of Mr. Tuers, or of John I. Ryerson; also objects, on the part of John I. Ryerson, to any declarations or conversations of John I. Tuers: this objection to extend to all subsequent testimony that may be offered.] I heard John I. Tuers say that he had given Ryerson the deed, but it was good for nothing, and he could get it back again at any time he wanted; this was towards the close of his life — a year or two before his death — a little while before he died, and he was by his senses when he told me; never knew that Tuers was out of his senses, except when he was drunk; then he was everything; when perfectly sober, he was a pretty good neighbor, and his mind then was good, so far as I know; when Tuers was in liquor, he was very wild — cursed and swore, and talked at the highest rate; when he began to drink, sometimes he took a long frolic, and stayed drunk as long as he could get liquor — some shorter and some longer; I don’t know, of my own knowledge, that he was in one of his drunken frolics at the time his wife left him, and he went to Ryerson’s.
    Being cross-examined, deponent says — John I. Tuers never had any children at home or anywhere else, that I ever heard of; I don’t think he was over eighty years of age when he died, but he was between seventy and eighty; I cannot say whether the hubbub which occurred in the family of Tuers when his wife went to Paterson, was before or after I heard of the deed being given ; I cannot say that, at that time, Tuers moved to Ryerson’s, nor that he made his home there, at all, but he was there sometimes; I don’t know of his ever staying there three days in succession, as I was not there to see him every day; some years afterwards, he got quite over his drinking; he became quite a man, and talked quite like a different man; he lived a different life, it appeared, from what he had done; from that time on, he remained quite a different man; could not call him a drunken man from that time; I cannot say that he was drunk when the deed was given, as I was not present; Tuers could get liquor, always, on credit, when he wanted it, as I suppose, for he had a good property; I don’t know that he could always get to it.
    Lawrence John Ackerman. — I am fifty-six years old, and have always lived in Franklin township; I knew John I. Tuers as long as I can remember; I lived about one-half mile from him, till within nine years last past; I understood that Tuers had given a deed to Ryerson, but the deed may have been given six months, perhaps, before I heard it; at that time, when the deed was given, Tuers was in the habit of drinking some, and both before and after that; when he was a-drinking in his frolics, he was quite rough; when he was in the way of drinking, he was like other people when half drunk — not capable of doing business; about the time of the giving of the deed, he was not half the time drunk, but he took hard frolics; he was sober a good deal more than half the time; I saw him buy liquor wherever he happened to be when he wanted it; he bought it whenever he had a chance; I do not remember having ever seen him buy any liquor at John I. Ryerson’s; Tuers and his wife were quite often in trouble — disputes between them; I think his wife was away at Paterson, one time, and think it was after the deed was given ; I know there was once a vendue of personal property at Tuers’, but who was the manager, I cannot tell; I don’t know whether Ryerson collected the money of the vendue; Tuers’ wife was there at the time of the vendue ; I think this vendue was before the deed was given j at the vendue there was some of the household furniture sold ; cannot say how much ; I don’t remember that anything else, except what was in the house, was sold; I cannot tell that the vendue was while he and his wife were separated, but I know she was home at the vendue ; it was said at the vendue, among the people, that the vendue was made to spite and oppose his wife; Ryerson was at the vendue; he was around there; I don’t know that he had any management of any consequence; he was helping hand out the things; I have heard Tuers tell Ryerson how his wife was; and Ryerson answered that if he had a wife like that, he would kick her out of doors; this was about the time of the vendue, but not at the vendue; after the vendue Tuers was sometimes home, sometimes at Ryerson’s, and running about a good deal; I cannot tell whether or not Tuers was in liquor at the time of the vendue; at the time of the vendue, and before and after, Ryerson and Tuers were together a good deal, and Ryerson called him “ Uncle John; ” he was not Ryerson’s uncle; during this time, while Tuers was in a frolic, he was a man of bad disposition, ami would do mischief to anyone he had a grudge against; Tuers was a man easily persuaded to anything, and to all appearance, I suppose he was a good deal under Ryerson’s influence at the time; Tuers never told me that he would put big property out of his hands, so that his wife could not get it; I never heard him make any threats about her; I don’t know that Mra, Tuers was kept out of doors at the time of the vendue, but I know she was opposed to the vendue; about eleven years ago, when I was at work mowing grass, Tuers came to me and after talking I told him he might rather have kept his property in his own hands; he answered that that was all nothing, as they had an article between them, so that he could get the deed back again at any time he wanted to do so; he did not tell me why he had done it.
    And being cross-examined, deponent says — When Mr. Tuers was free from liquor, he was a sensible man and capable of doing business; he was then a good-natured man; when he was in liquor he was foolish, and would do almost anything ; I have never known him, whenever in liquor, to make bad bargains in buying and selling property; he was in the habit of buying and selling; the biggest part of the neighbors were at the vendue; at the time of the conversation between Tuers and Ryerson, when Ryerson told him “that if he had a wife like that he wmuld kick her out of doors,” Tuers told him that his wife was carrying things to the neighbors, such as bedding out of the house, blankets, &c.; he also complained that she was mischievous ; that she did not give him good answers; that she quarreled with him, and had disputes with each other; that he could not live in peace with her; he did not complain to Ryerson that his wife was keeping with another man; I never heard him complain of that; I have heard a story of that kind in the neighborhood, that she kept with another man, but never heard Tuers had complained of it.
    Being re-examined-in-ehief, deponent saith — I have heard the story from others besides Ryerson, about Mrs. Tuers keeping with another man, and I have heard Ryerson talk about it; I have heard this story from others besides those to whom Ryersan had told it.
    Being again cross-examined, deponent saith — That Ryerson did not tell me that he heard Tuers speak about his wife in this way.
    Elizabeth Van Houten. — I am sixty-seven years old, and have lived in Franklin over fifty years; I lived about a mile from Tuers, and was well acquainted with him the whole time; he was a very intemperate man ; many a night he has laid on the floor at our house; I heard of the deed being given the same year he was in the habit of getting drunk; it all happened when he was a drunken man ; I don’t mean he was drunk at the time the deed was given, because I know nothing about that; about that time he was at my house frequently; was in the habit of coming there; a fortnight before Tuers died, I was there at Tuers’; he told me that he now felt so well satisfied in his mind that he had made his will; that he wanted to send for Mr. Fredericks, but had no chance; I asked him how he could make a will? he said, why? and I said to him, don’t Ryerson own it; the devil, says he, I have fixed it iust as I wanted; then I asked him if Ryerson had not a deed ; he said no ; what Ryerson had was good for nothing ; that Ryerson knew that the place belonged to him, (Tuers,) and that he willed it away; after-wards I told this conversation to Mr. Ryerson, and he said that old Tuers would talk a good deal, but said nothing further about it; Tuers lived on the place, and appeared to use it as his own up to the time of his death, the same as before the deed was given, as far as I saw; I was present at Tuers’ vendue; household furniture was sold ; I don’t know who held the vendue, but, at the time, it was said and understood that William Voorhis, who then lived on the place, and Mr. Ryerson, held it; Ryerson was active about the vendue, and was giving directions there; I think the vendue was before the deed was given, but cannot say how long; it was held while Tuers and his wife were separated, while she lived at Lake’s, at the Ponds; she was at the vendue; she got in the kitchen, but not in the house; the neighbors kept her out; Mr. Ryerson kept her out of the house j Mr. Ryerson was the only one kept her out; at the time Mr. Tuers was very much opposed and violent to his wife; Tuers and his wife lived apart a year or a year and a half; when Tuers was in his frolics he would talk that, out of his spite, he would put his property out of his hands, so that his wife could not get it; I expect he meant out of spite to her and her friends ; at the time of the vendue, I believe Tuers was partly sober, so that he knew what he was about; not very bad in liquor that day ; about the time of the vendue and the giving of the deed, I very seldom saw Tuers entirely sober; at one time Tuers talked to my husband about giving him a deed for the place, that he would sell it to him, not give it to him; and he said that he could not do it; don’t remember that he said he wanted to do it to keep his wife out of it; he said he would sell it and frolic it up, so that nobody should have anything of it, but he would have all the good of it himself; about the time the deed was given I have known him to go through the woods at our house, and get lost, aud he would lie and halloo, and our folks would go and get him right again ; Mr. Van Houten, my husband, is dead.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — when Mr. Ryerson kept Mrs. Tuers out of the house, he did not take hold of her to put her out; I did not hear him tell her that she should not come in ; I did not see Ryerson do anything to her, but the door was shut; I did not see him do anything, nor say anything to her, to prevent her being in the room.
    Being again re-examined-in-chief, deponent saith — I heard Mrs. Tuers at the time complain that she could not get into the house; she said that John Ryerson and William Voorhis kept her out; I did not hear Ryerson that day say anything to Mr, Tuers about keeping her out of the room; at that time Tuers was intimate with Ryerson; they were very great neighbors.
    Peter S. Demarest. — I live in'Franklin, in the neighborhood of the Ponds; I knew Abraham H. Garrison in his lifetime, now deceased; I heard him say that John Ryerson offered to give him a deed for the Tuers property; he told me this not longer ago than four or five years, and said that Ryerson owed him some money, and he was going south, and this was the only way that Ryerson could secure him for the money, by giving the deed; that Ryerson had owed it some time; he said that he did not take it, but had told Ryerson that he could leave it with his wife, Mrs. Ryerson, if he was going away; he had not taken the deed from Mrs. Ryerson at the time of this conversation with me, and he said he thought the deed was as safe with Mrs. Ryerson as with him; that he had the note, and they might keep the deed, that he did not want it; Garrison has told me that he did not want the Tuers place, that he would rather have the money than the place; Ryerson did go south, was gone a year or two, and returned three years ago last spring; after Ryerson’s return, I heard Garrison say that the Tuers property ought to be taken care of, but I don’t know who he wanted to take care of it; I have heard Garrison speak several times of the deed, and have heard him say that the deed from Tuers to Ryerson was a good deed; I have heard Garrison say that Ryerson had had the deed from him to Garrison there for him, and wanted to deliver it to him, but that he did not take it; I have heard Mr. Garrison say this more than once, but whether Ryerson had the deed there more than once, I don’t know; I have heard Mr. Garrison say this within three years; I have heard him say that he did not want to spend any of his money to get the place; that all he wanted was his own money that he had lent; this was after John Ryerson had come back the first time; I should say the Tuers place was worth from $1500 to $2000, but don’t very well know the situation of the place.
    Being cross-examined, says — I do not know whether Garrison ever refused the deed absolutely, but he has told me that he did not want the deed nor the place; that all he wanted was his money.
    Being re-examined-in-chieíj saith — Three years ago this last spring I was in Pennington’s office, at Paterson, with Mr. Ryerson and his two sons-in-law, when Mr. Pennington had a paper in his hands, and some of them three said, in the office, that that was the deed from Ryerson to Garrison.
    Isaac J. Storms. — -I am forty-six years old, and have always lived in Franklin, near the Tuers place — about one-quarter of a mile from it; I have always known Tuers well, since I can remember; about the time of the giving of this deed he was in very bad habits — quite an intemperate man ; I recollect of his being separated from his wife, and having a vendue to sell his personal property ; I cannot say what time it was ; I heard of Tuers giving the deed to Ryerson at the time it was done; I be« lieve this was about the time he was separated from his wife, or when he had the vendue; at that same time he was quite an intemperate man ; many a time at night he Came to our bouse, and would by all means go home; I would take him through the woods, as he could not get home ; about that time, and for some time before and afterwards, he was more intemperate than he ever was, either before or since, and I did not-, during that time see him much sober ; 1 saw him quite often, and pretty much all the time I saw him he was drunk ; I saw-him very often ; can’t say that I saw him every day, but we were close neighbors and on good terms; when drunk, I should not think he was fit to do any business; he was at such times a very bad man; Ryerson kept a store in the neighborhood, to sell liquor; I lived nearer to Tuers than Ryerson did ; he lived about a quarter of a mile from Tuers; I have seen Tuers at Ryerson’s, getting liquor, and saw him drink it there, but can’t say that I ever saw him lying d-’unk there; he did not often get down; while Tuers lived separate from his wife, I cannot say that he had his home' at Ryerson’s; he lived at different places; I often saw him at Ryerson’s; I don’t know that Ryerson is any connection of Tuers; Tuers was separated from his wife about one and a half years, and during this time Tuers was away at Frederick’s, in New York state, as he told me; who took him up there I cannot say; Tuers never told me that Ryerson took him ; I was present at his vendue, but cannot tell who conducted it; there was a good deal of noise made there; Mrs. Tuers made a good deal. of noise, and said they were selling her things that she got of her father, and she would not have it; I don’t know whether Mr. Ryerson took an active part; I did not see Mr. Tuers much out of doors that day, and can’t say how he was; I think the deed was given after the vendue; as far as I know, Tuers always continued in possession of the property up to the time of his death, and used it as his own ; Ryerson has never had possession, nor made the least use of this property, that I know of; I came into the possession of a part of this same property after the deed for it was given to Ryerson, and have since held it, and still hold possession of it; I bought it of Abraham Lake, who had bought it, he said, of Tuers.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — I bought it of Lake about ten or twelve years ago, more or less; my deed is not recorded ; Lake had been in possession a few years when I bought it of him; I know Frederick Adams, the complainant; he is no relation of Tuers, that I know of; when I have taken Tuers through the woods, as above stated, I can’t say where he came from, as it was night; he might have come from Ryerson’s, or from another direction.
    Being re-examined-in-chief, saith — I have heard Tuers speak of Ryerson’s cutting wood ou that place; he was very mad about it, and said it must be the last, or he would see what he had to do about it; this was not very long ago; might be five years ago, more or less.
    Albert J. Storms. — I live in Franklin, less than a quarter of a mile from Tuers’; have always lived there; I was forty-nine years old the 25th of April last, and knew Mr. Tuers well in his lifetime ; I heard of this deed to Ryerson at the time it was said to be given; I recollect the vendue, and of his being separated from his wife ; this'"was at the time of the vendue; the vendue was a little before T heard of the deed being given ; Ryerson told me that he had the deed, and that it was as good a deed as anyone’s; he told me this more than once, but I don’t remember the time; he told me this within three, four or five years after the deed was given; I am certain of this; told me more than once; at that time he did not tell me upon what condition he got Tuers’ farm ; about the time the deed was given, Tuers’ habits, as to temperance, were very bad; he was more intemperate than any one I have ever known about our place; I saw him often — not every day — sometimes more than once a week, sometimes not so often ; at that time, whenever I saw him, he was generally out of the way — -sometimes he was pretty reasonable; I cannot say whether he was ever quite sober, as he was a very drinking man ; when in liquor, he was a bad man — cursed and swore, and went on at the highest rate that I ever saw any one ; up to the time of his death Tuers continued in the possession of the property, using it as his own ; from his habits, during about all the time of his giving the deed and of the vendue, l did not think he was fit to do business; I believe he and his wife had a good deal of differences between them $ at this time he was a good deal with Ryerson, at his place; I have seen him at Ryerson’s store, but cannot say that I have seen him drinking there.
    And being cross-examined, says — When he was sober he might he capable of doing business, but it was hard to find him sober; a few years after this he became quite a sober man, and, as far as I know, he continued so till his death ; when he was sober, it seems he knew enough to do business, but he had no learning.
    James I. Ackerman. — I live within half a mile of Tuers’ place, in Franklin; I am nearly forty-four years old, and have always lived there ; I knew Tuers the time of the Vendue, and the separation from his wife ; they were about the same time; I have heard Ryerson say he had a deed from Tuers; I cannot say whether he told me before the separation ; it was about the time of the disturbance that the deed came out; Ryerson told rue this about twenty or twenty-five years ago, about the time he got the deed, or soon after; he told in my presence that he had got a deed of Tuers, and it was a good one, but that he did not want his property; he did not say how Tuers came to give him the deed.; I can’t say whether Ryerson told me this after Tuers and his wife lived together again; I cannot recollect whether the separation was after the deed was given ; I don’t know whether there was any disturbance about the deed being given ; Ryerson said that Tuers could have the deed any time, that he did not want it; at that time Tuers was not a sober man, but a very intemperate man ; I saw him frequently, but not every day ; he was hardly ever sober when I saw him about this time; I scarely ■ever saw him about that time when he was in a fit condition to do business, to convey away his property ; when in that situation I have heard Tuers talle pretty rough about his wife ; heard him say that he would put his property away, that he did not care much,how it went; I heard Ryerson tell Tuers that if he had such'a wife he would kick her, or that he would kick her out of doors; this was in the time of the disturbance, while they were separated, but can’t tell when exactly.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — when Ryerson told Tuers about kicking his wife, &c., Tuers was making complaint about his wife, that sometimes she carried off things ; I did not hear Tuers tell Ryerson at this time about another man being after his wife; I have heard Tuers say, more than once, when on a spree, that his wife had had connection with another man; I have met Ryerson with wood on the road; he was coming my road from my lot; my lot adjoins Tuers’ and leads to it; from the course he was coming he must have got it from Tuers’ lot; I never found out that he got it from my lot; the same time there was somebody cutting wood on Tuers’ lot; this was between four and six years ago.
    Being re-examined-in-chief, deponent says — there was a road along by Tuers’ house, to get the wood out; but the way Ryerson came was the easiest for him; the road by Tuers’ was all the way over his land, without coming over mine, but that way there was quite a hill; I am one of the witnesses to Tuers’ will, and was present when he executed it; I saw it drawn; Esquire Van Houten drew it, at Tuers’, in his presence ; Frederick Adams was not present; at this time Tuers said the property was his, and that the deed to Ryerson was not worth anything; he was asked about this deed, and this was ail he anwswered ; I should think it was a month or so before his death when he signed the will.
    [The copy and probate of the will of John I. Tuers, deceased, is offered in evidence on the part of the complainants, and marked Exhibit C 2 on the part of the complainants.]
    Being further cross-examined, deponent sailh — that Esquire Van Houten was busy drawing the will at Tuers’ when I came there ; he wrote a considerable after I got there ; whether he had written it all there I cannot say.
    Margaret Lake. — I am forty-seven years old, and was brought up in the family of John I. Tuers ; I was adopted by them when a child, and lived in their family until the year 1821; I had then been married seveii years, when I moved to about a mile from Tuers’ house, and lived there about four years, until the spring of 1825, when my husband and myself mbved back to Tuers’; I then lived at Tuers’ for four years; I recollect the time of Tuers being separated from his wife; it was during the first four years that I lived away from him, between 1821 and 1825; when I went back to them, in the spring of 1825, they had lived together again for one year; they lived apart about a year and a half; don’t know that it was quite a year and a half, but over one and less than two years; while they were separated Mrs. Tuers lived with me, at my house, and during that time Mr. Tuers was a part of the time at John I. Ryerson’s and a part of the time at his own house, I believe; he was backwards and forwards ; it was generally understood in the neighborhood that Tuers resided at Ryerson’s ; during the time of that separation, and just before and afterwards, he was almost the whole time in liquor; 1 saw him quite often during that time, sometimes he came to my house, sometimes he passed by ; I never saw him sober in that time, and when he was in liquor he was very unreasonable — the worst man that I ever saw when in liquor; Ryerson had had a grocery in the neighborhood for the sale of liquor for some years before I left Tuers’ the first time, cannot tell how long; after this grocery was opened, and Tuers got running there, he got a great deal worse than he had been before; the year before I left there he got very outrageous; when in a frolic he was very ugly to his wife, more so than to other people; he treated me very kindly, even when he was drunk; at one time I went to Ryerson’s and saw Tuers there drunk, sitting there, and heard Ryerson putting him up against his family, and heard Ryerson tell him, that if it was him, he would clear the whole damned lot out; when Tuers came home in liquor he was always ugly and quarrelsome towards his wife ; Ryerson was intimate with Tuers, but was an enemy to the family as long as I can remember; when Ryerson came to see Tuers, he seldom or never carne into the house, but sneaked around out of doors to find him ; at the time of his separation from his wife, I never saw Tuers sufficiently sober to do business; from what I know of Tuers’ habits before and at that time, I don’t think he was ever, at .that time, sufficiently by himself to do business or give a deed ; in 1825, after we had moved back to Tuers’, he had, the same spring, a settlement with Ryerson, and came into my room one evening, and asked one Chester Abby, then a school teacher there, to go with him to Ryerson’s to settle; Tuers could neither read nor write ; when they came back, they came into the room where I was, and got into conversation about the settlement, and Abby said to Tuers, “I’ll tell you, Mr. Tuers, what you ought to have done, you ought to have taken that deed when Mr. Ryerson offered it to you ; ” Mr. Ryerson had said to them, while lookiug over the papers, “ here is that deed, what are you going to do with it; ” and Tuers told Abby “ that it was not good for anything, what would I do with it;” I was present at the vendue, and Ryerson was boss, with William Van Voorhis and Lawrence Ackerman; all the furniture was sold, except one bed; the bed was reserved for Mr. Tuers; there was no bed reserved for Mrs. Tuers, I asked him myself; when Mrs. Tuers and I tried to go into the house that day, Ryerson and his wife, and Ackerman and wife, and Van Voorhis, were in the house, and the door was shut upon us; I did not see who shut it; they were handing out things to sell; there was a hubbub, more like war than like a vendue; Mrs. Tuers did uofc get into the house at all that day, but only into the kitchen; Tuers was not perfectly sober when the sale commenced, and before it was over he sat in the kitchen stiff drunk; I did not see Tuers do anything at all in managing the sale; during the first of the sale I went to him, while he was in the door-yard, and asked him to reserve a bed for Mrs. Tuers; he said he would see about it; and afterwards, before they came to it, I went to him and asked him again, and he said he would be damned first; when I spoke to him in the door-yard Ryerson and others were about, but can’t say that any of them were present and heard the conversation; at Mrs. Tuers’ request, I also went to Tuers and asked him for a brass kettle that she got of. her mother, and he said she should not have it; it was then sold, and Mrs. Ryerson bought it; after Mr. Tuers and his wife came together again, he became quite temperate, he became a nice man; after Mr. Ryerson opened his grog shop, and Tuers began to go there, he began to grow ugly towards me and my husband ; before that he treated me well; in the year 1825, when we came back, he gave to my husband a deed for a part of his main farm; from that time'to the present my husband and those to whom he sold, have always been in possession of that part; Frederick Adams is no relation of Mr. Tuers; his wife is great-niece of Mrs. Tuers; I am a niece of Mrs. Tuers; I never knew Tuers’ sister Rachel, the wife of Michael Moore, but have often heard him talk of her; they lived in New York at the time, I believe; Mrs. Moore is dead 5 I knew one son of hers, named Samuel, who lived in the English neighborhood ; 1 believe he is dead too; I never knew any other of her children; I don’t know any other children of Rachel Moore, but have often heard she had eight or nine; I knew Tuers’ sister Mary, the wife of Jacob Fredericks ; she is dead, and left three daughters, and one son, named Jacob, now living; they are said to be all living; I did not know Tuers’ sister Leah, the wife of John King; she is dead, and left one son, whom I saw at Paterson, after having been to see Mr Tuers; this son has died since Tuers’ death, leaving one son, now living; I have seen him within a few weeks, and understand his name is Jacob King.
    
      Being cross-examined, deponent saith — I never saw Rachel Moore, or any of her family, at Mrs. Tilers’, that I'know of; I never saw Leah King, nor any of her family, at Tuers’; Mr. Ryerson had a cotton-mill, grist-mill, saw-mill, and part of the time a bark-mill; when we moved away from Tuers’ the first time, to the Ponds, we had.a farm, and kept tavern; Mr. Tuers used to come to the tavern that we kept; sometimes he got liquor there, sometimes not; sometimes he was drunk there; he was always drunk when he came there; sometimes I refused to give him drink; sometimes I had to give it to him for peace’ sake, as I was afraid of him; while Mrs. Tuers was living with us, I saw Mr. Tuers as often as once a fortnight, or once in three weeks; I went with Mrs. Tuers to the vendue; I went to see, like other folks; she wanted me to go with her, and she went there to see if she could not save some of her things that she had brought there from her mother; she did not go there to make a disturbance; she made a good deal of noise at the sale; she got a crying, and cried wonderfully, and she talked, too; don’t recollect what she said, nor that she made a good deal of noise, otherwise than by crying; there was a good deal of noise there; more like war than a vendue; I don’t know of any disturbance among the others, except what arose from Mrs. Tuers being there; I made no disturbance there; Mr. Ryerson and myself have never been at variance; we have never been intimate ; he has always been unfriendly to me, and I treated him the same as he treated me; last Saturday I met him on the Paterson bridge, when he turned his head the other way, and did not speak to me; by Mr. Ryerson’s sneaking about the house, I meant he did not come into the house; when he came to see us, he came about the barn and - barn-yard, and around openly, so that we could see him; he did not come into the house and house-yard ; he does the same now; before that conversation in my room with Mr. Abby, Tuers had always denied to his wife that he had given a deed to Ryerson; this was the first that she knew of it with certainty ; she flew into a passion when he said so, and made a great noise about it; this was the spring of the first year after my return, in 1825.
    Abraham Lake. — I have known Mr. Tuers, and lived in his neighborhood for between thirty and forty years : I arn the husband of Margaret Lake, the last witness; I went to live in Mr. Tuers’ family when I was first married, a little over thirty years ago ; I lived there at that time for seven or eight years ; when I first got there, Tuers was quite a peaceable man to live with ; he drank, then, but after a while he got so Intemperate that there was no living with him ; when 1 first got there I cannot say with certainty that Ryerson kept a grocery store for the sale of liquor ; before I left, he did keep a grocery store, and sold liquor j Tuers was in the habit of going over in the direction of Ryerson’s, and I saw him return from that direction ; I cannot say that he got liquor there, but there was no other place in that quarter where he could get it; sometimes he would bring liquor home with him ; he was not much at home; he would be home a little while, and then be off again; he went in the direction of Ryerbou’s, and came back from that way oftener than any other direction ; that was his general route; the last part of this time I lived there, Tuers was hardly ever sober; he was scarcely by his senses any part of that year or two; after we moved away, and during the separation between Tuers and his wife, I used to see Tuers go backwards and forwards, once in a week, or every two or three weeks — -I can’t exactly say how often; I have seen him go past more than once, when he was lying in the back part of Ryerson’s wagon, seemingly not able to sit, and Ryerson’s wife and daughter on the seat of the wagon; he appeared to me at those times to be dead-drunk; during the time I was living at Tuers’, he was at Ryerson’s quite a good deal; he was from home a good part of his time ; whether he was at Ryerson’s all the time, I can’t say, but I have seen him there; during the time that Tuers and his wife were separated, I don’t know that I ever saw him sober; from my knowledge of his habits before the separation, and from what I saw of him during that time, I should say that, during the separation, he was never in a condition to do business ; I heard of the deed to Ryerson before I got my deed from Tuers ; Tuers conveyed to me a part of his homestead ; my deed was for twenty-one one-hundredths acres, and was given to me about the year 1825; as the consideration for this deed, I was to pay $300 debts for Tuers; I should say this was about the value of the land, or pretty near to it; I paid this $300 of debts for him, and have got the receipts for it; he proposed it to me; came to me crying, and said that he had about so much debt that must be paid, and if I would come back to live there, and pay it, he would give me a deed for a certain part of his farm; he did cnot say that Ryerson was to have paid these debts; before I got my deed, there was a report in the neighborhood that Ryerson had a deed for the farm ; and, to be sure about it, I went down to the record, and found there was none on record, so I took my deed and came right down and had it recorded; I got the deed before I moved back to Tuers’; I meant to be safe about it; we went back to Tuers’, after having been away from there four years; then I lived with him four years, and moved away again; I have never lived with him since; when-I first went back there, and when his wife and he got together again, he was not quite so bad; but after that he got worse again; the constables came there, and' rather than have them come there so often as they did, I paid the money before I was bound to pay it, as I was to have made it off the farm first; and when Tuers found out that I had nearly paid the debts, he got running to Ryerson’s, and became worse again; I was obliged to leave Tuers’ then, on account of his intemperance; he threatened to burn us all up ; he continued drinking until his leg got injured, when he had to stop it and leave off drinking; his legs became almost rotten, and when he died they were really rotted off; it was not five years before his death when his leg was injured, and he stopped drinking; after I left his house I moved to Paterson, in 1829, when I did not go back there for some time; after I lived in Paterson, I saw Tuers sometimes come to market there, and sometimes, on such occasions, he was sober, and sometimes he had been drinking; I have now got possession of the place, under Mrs. Tuers, I believe; she and I live there, and have possession of the whole of it; she and I have had the possession ever since Tuers’ death.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — Before I left Tuers’ I can’t say how long Ryerson had kept liquor at his store for sale; Mr. Tuers appeared to be pretty near right when I got my deed; this was at the time when he was in want of money, and after all had been taken away from him, and when he was a little better; it appeared that he knew what he was about when he gave me the deed; Chester Abby drew the deed, and Abraham Man Cleve took the acknowledgment; there was, at the same time, an article between Tuers and myself, drawn by Man Cleve; the article was, that I was to have the deed for a certain part (which deed I got), and I was to pay $300 debt, and I was to have the whole farm ; and both of our families were to have their living out of it first, and the overplus should go to pay this debt of $300; and when it was paid, the article was to be given up, and the part I had a deed for should be mine; after this — before I left Tuers’ and went to Paterson — he sued me for cutting wood, and I left there; since Tuers’ death, I have been cutting wood on the farm; I have cut it under the orders of Mrs. Tuers, and took some down, and got tea and sugar with it, under her orders; I have worked the place on shares for Mrs. Tuers, since her husband’s death; I have seen Mrs. Ryerson and her daughter go past my house in a wagon, with Tuers lying in it, behind: both ways — backwards and forwards from Ryerson’s.
    Being re-examined in chief, deponent saith — I have sold all the land I bought of Tuers, the same as I bought it; I had it run out.
    [The depositions of Margaret Lake and of Abraham Lake ara objected to on the part of the defendants.]
    Henry I. Speer. — I live near the Ponds’ church, in the township of Franklin, about a mile, or a little over, from where John 1. Tuers used to live; I knew John I. Tuers, Abraham H. Harrison, and John I. Ryerson; I have heard Abraham H. Garrison speak about a paper he had of John I. Ryerson, but he did not express to me exactly what it was; I don’t know that he did, particularly, state to me his impression as to whether the paper he had was good or not; he told me either that the paper was in the hands of Garret Man Dicn, or at Hackensack, if I recollect right, and said that he did not mean to bother himself about it, or something to that effect — that he was getting old; I was one of the appraisers who appraised Mr. Garrison’s effects after his death; there was no mortgage, or deed in the nature of a mortgage, to my knowledge, produced to the appraisers by his executors, to be appraised; the notes of John I. Ryerson were produced, and appraised as notes simply; I can’t say whether the notes had seals to them; I know the Tuers farm; can’t say what its value is; don’t recollect the number of acres in it; the farm is a rough kind of an establishment; I would not undertake to affix a value to it; I knew John I. Tuers about, the time he was separated from his wife; I knew him from about the year 1820 to his death; for a year or two — perhaps a little more— before his death, he was a little reformed as to temperance, but before that, he was a miserable wretch; I mean he was a miserable drunkard; I kept a public house for several years, and my sons have kept it since; I have always resided in the same house there; I can’t say that I ever knew a more miserable, besotted drunkard than John I. Tuers was; if he got out where there was liquor, he was not apt to keep sober; I suppose that, before he reformed a little, in his latter days, he was in the front rank as to drunkenness; this continued until within a few years of his death; after that, he came frequently to my house, after groceries and the like, and he said he did not dare to drink, on account of his sore leg; when in liquor, he was pretty roaring; liquor always appeared ,to make him kind of crazy; not oftentimes when I saw him, during the first ten years and more, down to 1835, that I knew him, was he in a fit condition to give a deed for his property.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — When I saw him, it was, principally, from home; I have seen Tuers at his own house, too, but can’t say that I have been there often — once, twice, or oftener; can’t say how often; when I saw him at his own house, I don’t distinctly recollect how he was, as to liquor; from my own knowledge, I don’t know how he was at home — whether temperate or not — but have seen him at his house when he was drinking hard cider; I was not present when he made his will, and don’t know how he was then.
    Rachel Blauvelt. — I am a daughter of Judge Martin Van Houten, senior; I was born and brought up at the Ponds, and lived there till a few years ago; I knew John I. Tuers well, in his lifetime — knew him at and before his separation from his wife; during that separation I was at the auction held at his house; I myself bought one article there; I did not hear the articles of sale read, but understood that the money was to be paid to John I. Ryerson; I heard it so said by those in the house; Ryerson kept the sales book a part of the time; by all appearances, he was one of the managers of the sale ; I did not myself pay for the article bought by me; my father paid for me; Mrs. Tuers came there; I heard Mr. Ryerson say that she should not be allowed to come into the house, and that her bid should not be taken; I recollect the expression he made ; it was, “that they must not allow the old dunder to come into the hou.se; that they must take her and put her outside the gate; ” she did not bid for nor buy anything there; I considered that Tuers was quite still in the afternoon ; he was not very noisy that day that I recollect; I can’t say that T heard Tuers say that his wife should not come in nor bid ; towards night he (Tuers) came into the kitchen where I and another woman were sitting; there were two ladles there and he took them up and gave us each one of them ; the other woman asked him whether he had the liberty to give them away; he said he would take that liberty, so we each took a ladle home; I don’t recollect that Tuers took any interest or active part in the sale; besides Ryerson, Lawrence J. Ackerman handed things out of the house; he and his wife were in the house; during that time of the separation, I never saw Tuers that he was right sober, until within a few years before bis death ; from that lime I can’t say that I ever saw him sober; I have seen him frequently at his home, and have seen my father fetch him from home, for fear that he would set his house on fire; my father’s house from Tuers’ was about half a mile, across lots; by the road, about a mile; when we went afoot to Tuers’, we went across lots; the 26th day of May last, I was forty-five years old; I lived at the Ponds until January, 1845; one day. Tuers came to my father’s house, after he was living with his wife again, and my father told him that he had been to Ryerson, and spoke to him about the business, which was, that Tuers owed my father some money for business done by my father for him, and Mr. Tuers said he was going to settle his own business; that Ryerson had nothing to do with his (Tuers’) business.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — At the vendue I think Ryerson did not write all the time; sometimes he was around ; we could not tell who wrote all the time, as the book was kept in the house; only very few were allowed to go in the house; about half a dozen were in the house the greater part of the time ; the things were handed over the lower door, and sold out of doors.
    Being re-examined-in-chief, says — Mr. Ryerson and his wife, Lawrence J. Ackerman and his wife, and "William Van Voorhis were in the house; Tuers was around, in and out.
    Being again cross-examined, says — My father’s claim was about fifty dollars; Tuers came that day to pay the interest; he paid it that day; he handed my father a three-dollar bill.
    Isaac J. Storms. — I know that John I. Ryerson got a black horse of John I. Tuers, some eight or ten years before his death, perhaps more; Ryerson’s son had him as his riding horse, and the son told me that they were to give ninety dollars for him.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — Mr. Ryerson’s son’s name that rode the black horse was George; it was after the separation between Tuers and his wife, if my memory serves me right; I can’t state the year nor month; George did not say that he had bought the horse, but that it was bought for his riding horse; I don’t know anything about the purchase, except from hearsay.
    [Defendant objects to what the son said to witness.]
    Being re-examined-in-chief, says — I knew the horse first as belonging to Tuers, and afterwards to Ryerson ; George, at the time, was living with his father, and was supported by him.
    William H. Winters. — I bought things at the vendue held at Mr. Tuers’ during the separation between him and his wife; I bought some small articles there; I paid John I. Ryerson for what I bought there; the articles of the sale had been read before I got at the vendue, but it was said there that the money was to be paid to Mr. Ryerson; I cannot read ; when I went to settle with him for the articles that I had bought at the vendue, and told him what I came for, he looked over a book that I supposed to be a vendue-book, and found my name; Tasked him to look over the vendue-book of Mr. Tuers — that I wanted to pay him — -and he got the book; I knew Abraham JET. Garrison well, in his lifetime; he often told me that John I. Ryerson had offered to give him a mortgage deed upon the property he had of Tuers, but that he (Garrison) had told Ryerson he would not take it; (hat all he wanted was to have as good money as he had let him have; that the property was not Ryerson’s, and lie would not give him two dollars for it; he told me that he had seen Ryerson, and wanted to bay of0him a place to put a fulling-mill on; that Ryerson would not sell it to him, and that he (Garrison) did not want to be bothered with the place of Tuers; I heard Garrison talk in this way several times; I heard him talk about this shortly before his death; the last time I heard him talk about this, was within a year or six months before his death ; this liad been going on for some time; after Ryerson had returned from Georgia, he and his wife were on a visit to Garrison’s; I was there, also, but did not hear anything said about it then; the next time I saw Mr. Garrison, he told me about this over again; I heard Garrison say that the deed to Ryerson was good for nothing; that the property did not belong to him, and he (Garrison) would not go to law about other people’s property, and would not throw good money after bad.
    Being re-examined, deponent saith — This conversation with Garrison was after Ryerson’s visit to him; I cannot say if it was after Ryerson had been the last time to Georgia, or not.
    Margaret Lake. — I have seen Garret Van Dieu, and had a conversation with him about this lease since Mr. Tuers’ death ; I met Van Dieu in Paterson, and we got into conversation about the place; we had often before been in conversation about it; I said to Van Dieu, “ I have always understood from you that you wrote the deed, and the executors tell me that Johnson wrote it;” he said, “Vo, but the lease;” I asked him, then, what the lease was about; he answered that the old man had come to him, aud was alarmed about it, and asked what he (himself) had been doing — that he was afraid he had put himself on the road; the old man had asked him, then, if there was nothing for him to do ; that he (Van Dien) had told him he guessed there was, and that then Ryerson had turned round and given bins the lease.
    [Witness desires to correct her statement upon her former cross-examination, in this — that John I. Ryerson had no carding nor cotton-mill at the time of the separation between Tuers and his wife. They were erected afterwards.]
    Leah Moore. — I now live in the English neighborhood; I lived at the Ponds, in the war; I knew John I. Tuers and his sisters; I knew Leah, the wife of John King ; she is dead, and left but one child, Benjamin King; he is dead, and left but one child, named Jacob King; I knew Rachel, the wife of Michael Moore; Rachel Moore is dead, and Charity Dealing is the only child she has left; I knew his sister Mary, the wife of Jacob Fredericks; I have heard she is dead ; she left four children, Jacob and his three sisters — Margaret, who was married to John O’Neill; Mary, who was married, as I have heard, to James Pilgrim, and Charity, who was married, as I have heard, to Jonathan Wilkes.
    Testimony for defendants.
    Garret Van Dien. — I live in the township of Franklin; was formerly sheriff of the county of Bergen ; I have, for many years, been a surveyor, also, and, for some years back, have been in the custom of drawing papers for people, suchas deeds, mortgages, leases, &c.; sometimes people apply to me for advice in relation to their affairs; I was acquainted with John I. Tuers in his lifetime; have seen him several times; he came to me for advice in relation to his affairs, in the year 1831; he camo alone to my house; he told me he had conveyed his property to John I. Ryerson, and that he had heard Ryerson was going to fail, and that he would be turned on the road, and have no means to support himself, and wanted my advice as to what would be best for him to do; I told him the better way for him would be to lease the property for life, if Ryerson would agree to it; then I asked him if he had given the deed to Ryerson ; he said yes; I then asked him what he paid for it, and he said' that Ryerson was to pay all his debts; that he had had money from Ryerson several times, and had boarded there; that Ryerson was also to pay $100 that he owed Albert Van Voorliis; this was principally the whole of what passed then ; I told him he had better go home and bring Ryerson down with him, if Ryerson would agree to it; a few days afterwards, Ryerson and Tuers came down together to my house and talked over the matter, and Ryerson agreed that he should have it for life, with the exception of the timber that he wanted, to build, &c., he should cat when he wished j there was a rent of $18 reserved ; this was to make it binding j I told them there ought to be inserted some sum to make it binding, and they told me to put any sum, and I told them that $17 or $18 would be sufficient; they then agreed fully upon the terms j I was to draw it, and Ryerson was to come down and sign it; Tuers and Ryerson wanted me to keep it in my possession; 1 drew the paper after they had left; Ryerson came down and signed it; it was drawn in conformity with their agreement; it was agreed that Ryerson was to come down and sign the paper, and I was to keep it; within a few days after, Ryerson came down and signed the paper, and he at dio same lime gave me the deed from Tuers to him, to have it recorded ; I took the deed down to Hackensack, and left it in she office; shortly after this I mot Mr. Tuers on the road, and lio asked me whether Ryerson had signed the lease; I told him he had; he asked me if I was paid for it, and I told him that Ryerson had paid me for it; he asked me whether I had the lease, and told me I must keep it; in this business I acted for Mr. Tuers ; when he first came alone to consult me, he asked me not to tell Ryerson that he had been to me for advice; I have never to this day told Ryerson that Tuers had been to me for advice; I never knew that a deed had been given by Tuers to Ryerson, until Tuers came to me and asked advice about it; I never had any conversation with Ryerson about it, until they came together to me; I live about eight miles from Tuers’ house.
    [A paper writing purporting to be a lease from John I. Ryerson to John Tuers, dated August 20th, 1831, being shown to deponent, he says] — It is in my handwriting, and I signed it as a subscribing witness; it was signed and sealed by John I. Ryerson, in ray presence, three or four days after the time it bears date. [Which paper is offered in evidence and marked Exhibit D 1 on the part of the defendants.]
    [A paper purporting to be a deed from John I. Tuers to John I. Ryerson, dated May 1st, 1823, duly acknowledged and recorded, being produced, is offered in evidence and marked Exhibit D' 2 on the part of the defendants. The deed being shown to deponent, he says] — This is the deed I took to the clerk’s office to be recorded ; I knew Josiah Johnson, the commissioner who took the acknowledgment of this deed ; he is dead; and I know his handwriting; I have known John I. Tuers for forty odd years; I saw him, but not very often, from the year 1820 to the year 1835; when he got out in company he would have a drunken frolic sometimes for a fortnight; he would run out when he got in a frolic; about eighteen years ago I was assessor for Franklin township; when he first came to me to consult me, he was as sober as a judge; when he came to me with Ryerson he was sober; from the way that he talked at those times, I considered him perfectly competent to take care of his own business; at both those times he was not in the least disguised with liquor; he was generally drunk at election times; when he was with me, I thought he was a man who was taking care of his own business, or else he would not have come for advice to take care of his life estate in the property; I was one of the appraisers of the estate of Abraham H. Garrison, deceased.
    [A paper purporting to be a sealed bill given by John I. Ryerson to Abraham H. Garrison, dated May 1st, 1834, for $991, with interest, being produced and marked Exhibit D 3 on the part of the executors of Abraham H. Garrison, deceased; also a paper purporting to be a note given by John I. Ryerson to Abraham Garrison, dated January 20th, 1837, for $50, being produced and marked Exhibit D 4 on the part of the executors of Abraham H. Garrison, deceased, and said papers being shown to deponent, he says] — They were both produced to the appraisers of Garrison’s estate, and were inventoried by us; I know the signatures to both to be the handwriting of John I. Ryerson.
    [The paper marked Exhibit D 1 on the part of the defendant, being shown to deponent, he says] — This is the lease that I took from John i. Ryerson for Mr. Tners, as before stated.
    Being cross-examined, deponent says — When Mr. Tuers first came to consult me, I had never heard of the deed from Tuers to Ryerson; Tuers told mo he had given Ryerson a deed for his farm ; he did not tell me when it had been given ; did not state to me that it was given while he was separated from his wife; lie did not state anything to me about the object for which he gave the deed ; he told me that the deed would turn him on the road ; he asked me what course he must take to keep his life estate in it, and I told him he must take a lease for life ; he did not, when I told him the effect of the deed, use the expression,, or anything like it — “ My God ! what have I done ? I have put myself upon the road; ” he told me he liad given Ryerson a deed for his farm, and having heard he was going to fail, was afraid his creditors would take hold of it and turn him (Tuers) upon the road, and he asked me what he must do, and I told him to get a life estate from Ryerson, if he would do it; Tuers had not the deed with him; I never saw it until it was handed to me to get it recorded ; Tuers never consulted with me as to whether the deed was a good deed ; he told me Johnson had drawn it, and taken the acknowledgment; Tuers did not see the lease, nor hear it read, after it was drawn ; Tuers had no other object in consulting me, excepting to know how he might avoid being turned out upon the road; he said nothing about a life estate; that first came from me — I advised it; neither when Tuers came alone, nor when he and Ryerson came together to . me, did they bring the deed ; Ryerson brought it when he came and signed the loase ; I don’t recollect having done any business for John I. Ryerson before that time ; Tuers came to me the first time on horseback; the second time, I don’t recollect whether lie came with Ryerson in the wagon, or whether they both came on horseback ; I don’t recollect whether or not John I. Ryerson ' failed at that time, but there was a good deal of talk about it; always since that time, Ryerson has been considered in insolvent circumstances, or pretty hard run; there has been a talk with the neighbors that ho had it pretty tough to get along; there was a little report of this kind at the time the lease was given, but not much; some years afterwards there was a considerable .talk of this kind ; between the year 1821 and the date of the lease, I had seen Tuers several times — perhaps a dozen times; saw him both drunk and sober within that period ; I am the subscribing witness to the deed from Ryerson to Garrison, the same being an exhibit now offered on the part of the executors of Abraham H. Garrison, deceased, and marked Exhibit I) 5, on the part of defendants. [The same being shown to deponent, he says] — I don’t recollect whether it was executed at my house, nor who was present at the time; Garrison was not present at the execution ; Ryerson directed me to draw it; he directed me to draw a deed; at the time of its execution it was understood to be a deed ; it was drawn and executed as a deed, and not as a mortgage; Ryerson had a wife; I don’t recollect if she was present at its execution ; Ellen Ryerson, the other subscribing witness, is the daughter of John I. Ryerson, but I can’t tell from this whether it was signed at his house, or whether she was with him at my house; I believe Ryerson took the deed with him when it was executed, all acknowledged just as it now is; I have no interest in the result of this suit; Ryerson don’t owe me, nor the estate from which my wife or I expect to get property, one cent; I have not taken an active part in assisting Ryerson to prosecute his claim to this property; I went with him to counsel, I did not employ any; I went with him only to show what papers I had ; I had the deed to Garrison, the lease to Tuers, and I think I had the deed to Ryerson ; I took the deed to Ryerson to the clerk’s office, and got it from the office when recorded ; don’t know that I had held the deed to Ryerson from, that time, or had returned it to Ryerson ; I went to employ counsel for Garrison, at his request, but not for Ryerson.
    Being re-examined-in-chief, deponent saith — When Ryerson and Tuers were together to see me, I marked down in writing the terms of their agreement, and from this memorandum I drew the lease; when I put down the terms in writing, I stated them to Ryerson and'Tuers, but don’t recollect of reading it over to them after I had taken them down.
    John I. Ryerson, Jr. — I reside in Manchester, in this county; I am the son of John I. Ryerson; I knew John I. Tuers; I lent him money at different times, and took his notes for it;
    
      [Three papers being shown to deponent, purporting to be notes of hand given by John I. Tuers to deponent, he says] — They are all signed by John I. Tuers; I don’t recollect whether I wrote the notes, but I believe them to be in my handwriting; Mr. Ryerson, my father, paid me the money for the notes; I think that my father paid me either $170 or $270 ; besides these three Eiotes, there must be another note of $50 somewhere; that money I got of John I. Garrison, and lent it to Tuers; and that, with these notes, would make $170; I recollect of Tuers getting a black mare of my father ; she was a good one j worth $85, or more — call it $85; I don’t know that Tuers got store goods particularly, but he got flour, and grain for seed j I understood that he got what he wanted j the money for the notes was paid me by John I. Ryerson after the deed was given ¡ this money Tuers got of me after the deed was first left with my father 5 and after I understood that he had taken the property, he paid me these notes.
    [The three notes above mentioned are offered in evidence on the part of John I. Ryerson, and marked Exhibits D 6, D 7, ■and D 8 on part of the defendants.]
    I think that I received either $170 or $270 j am certain it was one or the other.
    Being cross-examined, deponent saith — I * can’t say how long I laid out-of this money j I don’t recollect that my father ever got a black horse from Tuers j I never did j I am about forty-two years old; when I lent Tuers this money I was carding and fulling for country people, in a mill I hired of my father j 1 recollect of Tuers being parted from his wife ; I don’t recollect whether or not he stayed or boarded at my father’s bouse a part of that time • I never heard my father say that he collected the vendue book; I have seen Tuers both drunk and sober ; John S. Forshee is a son-in-law of my father’s ; he has been married to my sister about twenty years; I am not sure as to the time; he was married before I was, which is seventeen years ago; cannot tell whether he had any children before my marriage.
    John S. Forshee — [Objected to on the part of the complainants.] — In the year 18311 went to Tuers’ place, to work for him j I worked part of the place for him on shares, and at different times made shoes for him, and did some day’s work for him ;. when I went there, he offered to give me a lease for seven or eight acres ; he gave me the lease, and I built a small house upon the land ; I worked off and on for him eight or ten years or more; after I got my lease, I heard Tuers, at different times, talk about the deed given by him to Ryerson, and about the lease given by Ryerson to him ; after he got the lease, he came to me and told me that Ryerson had fixed some paper with him j I don’t know what it was, not having seen it; he told me it was fixed just as be wanted it, that he had it now as he wanted ; he told me that Ryerson had given him a lease for his life; that it was fixed as he wanted it; he has had conversations to this effect several times with me; he has, at different times, told me who was to pay his debts; he has told me about, this $170 that Ryerson had paid to his son John for him ; he has told me this at different times; I remember the horse that George had of Tuers; I had conversation with Tuers the day it was born, and he said, there is a colt for George; that he had promised him one; after' George had him, Tuers told me that he had given the colt to George; that he had had him long enough, and George might take care of it himself; he said he had given it to George;, after Tuers had the lease, he came to me and said, “ Now 1 have fixed it right with the old man, and you must go to him, and he must give you a deed for the land ;” by the old man he meant Mr. Ryerson, and it was for the .lands that I had a lease for; my lease was dated March 12th, 1831 ; I then went to Mr. Ryerson, and told him what Tuers had said, and Ryerson said he1 ■would give me a deed, and sent it to me.
    [A deed being shown to deponent, he says] — This is the deed.
    [The same is offered in evidence and marked Exhibit D 9 on the part of the defendants] — At the time I went to Tuers’, in 1831, and for some years afterwards, I considered Tuers a sober man; he would take a glass sometimes, but I have known him more than once to refuse it; he has refused to drink with me, and said he was afraid to drink on account of"his sore leg; I like a glass sometimes, and I always asked him to drink if he was present; his leg was sore when I went there; called an old gore then ; I had understood that years before that he had been a hard drinking man, and I had in fact seen him drunk; when Tuers was sober, I thought he was about as capable of doing business as any other man without learning ; Ryerson gave up his store and selling liquor as much as twenty years ago ; he did not sell liquor nor keep store, to my knowledge, in 1831; I am married to a daughter of Mr. Ryerson ; I married her in August, 1825 ; the lease from Tuers to me is for fifty years.
    Being cross-examined, deponent says — l now hold the seven or eight acres under the deed from Ryerson, and it is a part of the Tuers farm ; I don’t consider that I have an interest in the event of this suit,; I suppose that if this deed to my lather in-law is set aside, my deed will have to go too ; I have taken no interest in the defending of this suit, nor got any witnesses ; I have stopped people by the way, and asked them what they knew about it ; I have, in the progress of this examination, constantly consulted with Mr. Pennington, the defendants’ counsel, and directed him what questions to put to the witnesses; it is not understood between me and Ryerson that, if he keeps the place, my wife or myself were to have the Tuers place, only what f now'hold under my deed; never thought of such a thing, except I could buy it; my lease from Tuers is about yet somewhere ; the rent was ten dollars ; I never lived in the house with Tuers; never lived on his place, except the part I built on ; I worked it for Tuers on shares, two, three or four different years, but not successively; I never worked the whole of the farm of Tuers on shares, except perhaps, one year ; he generally kept a potato patch and garden for himself; I have torn down the house that I built upon the seven or eight acres; part of it I have taken off, and parts are yet left on it; I tore it down not over six or seven years ago, before Tuers’ death ; when I tore it down, I don’t think that I told any person that I did so because my title to the place was not good ; I always considered my title good enough ; my barn and hovel are yet on the land ; I built the house in the year 1831, the same spring T got the lease.
    [The complainants produce and offer a deed from John I. Tuers and wife to Abraham Lake, duly acknowledged and recorded, which is marked Exhibit C 3 on the part of the complainants.]
    Albert N. Van Voorhis. — [Being shown a paper purporting to be a bond executed by John I. Tuers to Baltye Demarest, in the penal sum of £80 current money of the State of New York, conditioned for the payment of one hundred Spanish milled dollars, and bearing date the 19th day of June, A. D. 1822, and assigned by Peter Cole, the husband of the said Baltye Demarest, to the said Albert N. Van Voorhis, which said bond is marked Exhibit A on the part of the defendants, deposeth and saith] — That John I. Ryerson has made payments to him since the 20th of August, A. D. 1831, on said bond; thinks he made payments at two different times, and paid deponent six dollars at each time; deponent is now seventy-nine years old; as far as deponent can remember he has received payments of interest on said bond since August 20th, 1831, from one Van Houten, who was the executor of John I. Tuers.
    Cross-examined on the part of the complainants — Deponent believes John I. Ryerson said, when he made the payments of interest, he paid it for Tuers; I don’t recollect Ryerson ever saying it was his debt, or that he was bound to pay it; I should know Ryerson if I were to see him now; I first became acquainted with him when he paid the interest to me on the bond.
    
      A. O. Zabriskie, for complainants.
    He cited 16 John. Rep. 47, 515; Saxton 689, 346, 353, 110, 244-5; 1 Green’s Ch. 374; 16 Ves. 512; 3 Ves. & Beam 117; 10 Eng. Cond. Ch. Rep. 406 ; 1 Ves. & Beam 195; 13 Eng. Cond. Ch. Rep. 192.
    
      A. S. Bennington, for defendants.
    He cited Saxton’s Ch. 320; 1 Fonbl. Eq. 144 ; 1 Greenl. Evid., §§ 109, 147 ; Saxton 458; 4 Halst. Rep. 153; 2 Greenl. Evid. 297.
   The Chancellor.

The answer of Ryerson admits that he did not accept the deed from Tuers to him when it was left with him, in 1823; he says that Tuers desired him to accept a deed and pay his debts; that he did not at first consent to it; that Tuers, thereupon, without his knowledge or consent, procured a deed to be made to him, and acknowledged it, and brought it to him, and delivered it to him, and insisted on his putting it on record, and went away, leaving the deed in his hands; that the deed remained in his hands until August 20th, 1831, when Tuers came to him and insisted that he should accept the deed and pay his debts. This shows that the deed was inoperative up to August 20th, 1831, more than eight years after it was left with Ryerson.

To estimate, rightly, the transaction of August 20th, 1831, the testimony as to the habits of Tuers, and his capacity to make a deed at the date of the deed, and from that time onward, and to a period subsequent to August, 1831, must be taken into consideration.

The testimony shows such a state of mental and physical imbecility in Tuers — the result of excessive and long-continued intemperance — that a deed from him, without consideration, to a man who, from day to day, ministered to his passion for strong drink, if it had been accepted by Ryerson, would, I think, at this day, be declared void. Ryerson’s own conduct in reference to the deed, shows a consciousness on his part, that it could not be considered a valid deed. This consideration has great influence in our examination of the transaction of August, 1831, That transaction was based by Ryerson and Van Dien on the instrument purporting to be a deed made in 1823.

The deed being admitted by Ryerson to be inoperative, up to August, 1831, the allegations of the answer on which Ryerson claims that the deed then became valid, must be proved. The proof does not sustain the answer. On the contrary, the testimony in relation to the transaction of August, 1831, compared with the answer, and the nature of the writing then given by Ryerson — called, in the answer, a lease for life — and the fact stated by the witness Van Dien, that that writing was not seen by or read to Tuers, throw too much suspicion on that transaction to permit the court to say, from anything which took place, that any such assent was given by Tuers to this last arrangement as would give life and effect to the writing purporting to be a deed made iu 1823.

I am willing to order a reference, for the purpose of ascertaining how much Ryersou has paid, and when, and how much he received from the sale of the goods at the vendue, or otherwise, from Tuers, reserving the question whether he shall have a lien ■on the lands for what he may be found to have paid.

Decree for complainants.

Affirmed, 2 Hal. Ch. 618.  