
    SUYDAM AND JOHNSON v. MARTIN AND OTHERS.
    Deed ofland under coiitract of sale — trustee—interest of a party — in a bill for a specific performance, the money due should be brought into court.
    Where one takes a conveyance of land under contract of sale to another, of which he has knowledge, he holds the fee in trust for the purchaser.
    Where a party seeks relief in chancery, the case must show that he has an interest in the subject.
    If a specific performance of a contract is prayed for, the money admitted to be due, should be offered, and if refused, brought into court.
    In Chancery. The bill makes the following case: That Martin, in 1827, by parol contract with one Thompson, sold him a lot in Unionville, for fifty dollars, to be paid in two years, and put him in possession under the contract; 'that he built on the lot, and made improvements to the value of eight hundred dollars.
    
      In 1829, Thompson sold to Palmer, by consent of Martin, and Martin accepted Palmer for the purchase money, instead of Thompson. Palmer went into possession, and contracted to buy an adjoining piece of ground, at a stipulated price, but without any fixed time of payment. He took possession of this piece, enclosed it, and the same year conveyed his interest, by deed, to the complainants to pay a debt he owed them, and put them into possession.
    Martin never called for the purchase money until August, 1832, and then agreed to wait sixty days longer for it. Within the sixty days, the money due was tendered, and a' deed demanded, but Martin had before this, called for the purchase money, and deeded to Harper, with full 'notice. Palmer has always been ready to pay, now offers to pay, and prays that Harper be held as trustee of the complainants, and decreed to convey, or pay for the improvements.
    
      Harper’s answer, admits the first contract between Martin and Thompson, but asserts ignorance of the other contracts, possession, or the extent of the improvements. It admits that before he took the deed, he heard a rumor that Palmer had conveyed to some New York creditors to secure a debt, but supposed the conveyance was to defraud him out of an award of one hundred and eighty-eight dollars, which he had against him, and which is still dúe. Before he took the deed, Martin told him there was no written contract for the land, and he could get no pay. Denies the tender, but offers to convey, if the complainants will pay his award, &c. Avers that since the transfer to the complainants, Palmer has collected money pretended to be included in the assignment, and applied it to his own use. Gave notice to Palmer that he was going to take a deed, but he did not pretend to any claim.
    It was in proof, that Harper took the deed the 20thAugust, 1832, with knowledge of Palmer’s contract and possession. On the 28th August, 1832, Palmer tendered Martin two hundred and eighty-two dollars and ninety-two cents, in full, of the purchase of fifty dollars, and interest from the last ofDecember, 1827. In August, 1832, before the deed to Harper, sixty days were given to Palmer to raise the purchase money.
   Bt the Court.

Harper took the deed, with full knowledge of . the sale by Martin to Thompson, and by Thompson to Palmer, and holds the title in reference to those contracts as Martin did. There is no proof that the complainants have any interest in the matter; if they have, and would ask a performance of the contract, they should tender the purchase money, and bring it into court. There is no money brought in, or in fact offered, and no right to a decree appears in the complainant.

Leave was asked and given to amend.  