
    NEW HAVEN COUNTY,
    JANUARY TERM, A. D. 1793.
    Cook et ux. v. Ephraim Beacher et al., Heirs of Eliphalet Beacher.
    In chancery whoever claims in right of another, must show that ho from whom ho claims had good right, and that he has good authority to claim his right.
    PetitioN in chancery, showing that on the 10th of February A. D. 1779, on a settlement of accounts between Reuben Beacher, executor of Eliphalet Beacher and Joshua Chandler, there was found due from the estate of said Eliphalet to said Joshua, a greater sum than was due from Samuel Cook deceased, to the estate of said Eliphalet, upon a mortgage given by said Samuel to said Eliphalet, on the 14th of February A. D. 1761, as collateral security for a debt of £70 lawful money; and as said Chandler had not then taken the oath of fidelity to the United States, he could not take a deed, it was agreed by said Joshua to accept a deed of said mortgaged premises, in satisfaction of said balance, and said Beuben Beacher, executor of said Eliphalet, gave a bond to give or procure a deed of said premises, whenever he should become qualified to receive it ■ — ■ which bond was lost or mislaid.
    That said Chandler at the same time was indebted to said Samuel Cook for moneys received of him to a greater amount than was due on said mortgage, and it was agreed by said Chandler that he would procure a deed of said mortgaged premises and convey them to said Samuel in payment of what he owed him; that said Chandler soon after went off with the enemy and was /since dead and insolvent, having never received anything towards his debt from said Beacher, nor ever paid anything on account of said debt to said Cook — and said Samuel relying on said agreement, did not exhibit his said claim to the commissioners on said Chandler’s estate; that the petitioners were the rightful heirs of said Samuel Cook; that said Beuben Beacher was dead, and that said Sarah the wife of said Ephraim Beacher and' the other petitionees were the heirs of the said Eliphalet Beacher, and as such had recovered said mortgaged premises, at law, from the petitioners — praying that the petitionees might be ordered and decreed to convey said premises to the petitioners, in satisfaction of the debt due from said Eliphalet to said Chandler, and also in satisfaction of the debt due from said Chandler to the estate of said Samuel Cook, of whom the petitioners were the legal representatives, agreeable to said bond from Beuben Beacher, executor aforesaid, to said Chandler, and said Chandler’s agreement with said Samuel Cook.
    Plea in abatement — That the facts stated in said petition did not lay a foundation for the relief asked for.
    Judgment — That the . plea in abatement. is sufficient. The petitioners’ claim against the petitionees, is in Chandler’s right, -without showing any good, right Chandler has or ever had. They say he had a bond from the executor, but that it is lost or mislaid, without alleging any proof they have of the fact,, which is not a sufficient reason for not producing it.
   Further, they show no authority from Chandler to claim a deed from the petitionees in his behalf; nor do they show any ground of claim upon said Chandler, but a naked parol agreement to procure a deed of said premises, and convey them to the said Samuel, which will not warrant any suit in chancery for the relief prayed for.  