
    [Philadelphia,
    February 1, 1836.]
    GASPER and Others against DONALDSON and Another.
    IN ERROR.
    In ejectment against one claiming under a conveyance made by the ancestor of the plaintiffs, which they sought to set aside, on the ground of inadequacy of consideration, and' imbecility of the grantor ; the parties standing also in the relation 'of mortgagor and mortgagee; it was held, that a will made by the grantor, three years )iq-. fore the date of the deed, when the parties stood in the same relation ; in which he devised the same property to the grantee in the 'deed, was admissible iri evidence, to show the intentions and disposition of the grantor towards the grantee. ' 1
    Writ of Error to the District Court for the City and County pf Philadelphia.
    An action of ejectment was brought in that court by Lewis Gasper, and Mary his wife, in right of the-said Mary, Sarah Porter, Ann Porter, Rosina Porter, Elizabeth Porter, Mary Ann Porter, Hannah Porter, Joanna Porter, and Emma Porter, against John Donaldson and William Baker, to recover a house and lot of ground situate on the east side! of Delaware Sixth Street, in the City of Philadelphia.
    The plaintiffs claimed, as heirs at law of ope Robert Venable, who was born on .the 22d of April, 1730, and died, seized of the premises, on the 19th of December, 1831.
    The defendants claimed, under a conveyance of the premises from Robert Venable to John Donaldson, in fee, dated December 1st, 1829, acknowledged the next day, and recorded on-the 8th of the same month. John Donaldson, on the 27th of March, 1832, conveyed the lot in question to William G. Baker,' in fee, reserving an annual ground rent.
    It appeared in evidence on the trial, that Venable had been a slave in the family of the grandfather of the defendant, Donaldson, by whom he was manumitted. He purchased the lot in question, and borrowed $200 on mortgage from John Donaldson, the father of the defendant. The consideration mentioned in the deed was $ 500. The allegation on the part of the plaintiffs was, that the consideration was inadequate, and that the grantor was incapable at the time.
    The defendants, having given their title in evidence, offered a paper, purporting to be the will of the said Robert Venable, dated the 13th of September, 1826, containing a devise of the lot in question- to John Donaldson, the father of the defendant; having proved by the person who drew the will, that Venable declared that he was considerably indebted to Mr. Donaldson, and that he wished to show his gratitqde to him.
    
      The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the admission of this paper in evidence; but the court admitted it, and a bill of exceptions was taken to their opinion, and the record removed to this court.
    The only error assigned, was the admission of the paper writing, purporting to be the will of Robert Venable.
    . Mr. G. M. Wharton and Mr. F. W. Hubbell, for the plaintiffs in error.
    ■1. The will of Robert Venable ought not to havm been admitted in evidence. The defendant relied upon a deed expressed to be for a valuable consideration; which, however, was clearly shown to be inadequate. The issue was upon the consideration, and the question of the motives or intentions of the grantor was irrelevant. The will was never proved ; but, if proved, it would have been inoperative, since it was revoked by the deed set up on the other side. It was, at best, only a declaration of the grantor, which was not admissible. In support of these positions, they cited Rife v. Galbreath, (1 Penn. Rep. 204.) Innes v. Campbell, (1 Rmde, 374.) Brown v. Downing, (4 Serg. R. 498.) Wolverton v. Plart, (7 Serg. R. 273.) Eclgar v. Boies, (11 Serg. fyR. 445.) Kendall v. Lee, (2 Penn'. Rep. 488.) Mildmáy’s case, (10 Rep. 176, a.) Peacock v. Mart, (1 Ves. 128.) Wilt v. Franklin, (1 Binn. 518.) Hayden v. Mentzer, (10 Serg. dp R. 329.) 1 Roberts on Wills, 219, 226. Lawson v. Morrison, (2 Dali. 2S9.) Sparrow v.. Hardcastle, (3 Aik. 803.) Ambler, 215. 7 Vesey, 393. 8 Ves. 233. 6 Ves. 205. Hawes v. Wiatt, (2 Cox’s C. C. 203.) Attorney General v. Vigor, (8 Ves. 283.) Hause n. Hull, 2 Binn. 511.
    2. At the date of the will, and at the date of the deed, the parties stood in the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee; and it is said in the cases, that conveyances shall not be-admitted between such parties. Webb v. Rourke, (2 Sell. Sp Lefroy, 661.) Davoue v. Fanning, (2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 252.). Seagrove v. Cuneen, (1 Beatty, 157, cited in Shelford on Lunatics, 318.)
    Mr. Kittera, contra, was stopped by the court.
   Per Curiam.

The imputation of fraud rested mainly on the ground of inadequacy of consideration. Was not the will, not only competent, but powerful evidence to repel it, by showing that the grantor meant to stipulate, not for an outside price, but a living; and that, at a preceding period, when there was no imputation of imbecility on the one side, or artifice on the other, he avowed an intention to give the estate at his death to the defendant, as a gratuity? In this aspect, the competency of the will, whether revoked or riot, or otherwise avoided, as a conveyance, was unquestionable.

Judgment affirmed.-.  