
    HUNTER vs. WALLACE, FINLEY, AND KNOX.
    
      In Equity—Knox who lived in Pennsylvania, owned the house and lot, No. 10. in the town of Knoxville. He wrote a letter to the defendant Wallace, who lived in the neighbourhood of Knoxville, requesting him either to sell or get the lot improved. Wallace in pursuance of this letter, as an attorney for Knox, entered into an article of agreement with the plaintiff Hunter. That Hunter should give $100, take possession of it, and go on to improve that if Knox did not agree to the sale it was to be void,but Hunter was to be paid for his improvements and keep free possession until paid. The bill charged that the defendant Finley having full notice of these articles, purchased of Knox, and procured a conveyance, upon which he brought an ejectment against the plaintiff, and recovered at law. Upon this statement an injunction had been granted.
    Three issues of fact had beep referred to a jury, which in substance were—
    1st. Had Finley notice of the sale to the plaintiff at the time he paid the purchase money, or procured his conveyance ?
    2d. What was the value of the improvements made by the plaintiff ?
    3d. Did Knox empower Wallace, either by letter or verbally, to make the contract with the plaintiff?
    How far a jury on the trial of an issue out of chancery, are boundby the answer. A subsequent purchaser, with notice of a prior sale, shall be divested of his title, and decreed to pay the costs.
    
      The jury found that Finley had notice that Knox empowered Wallace both verbally and by letter, to make the contract with the plaintiff, and that the value of the improvements made by the plaintiff was $1150.
    Upon the hearing at March, 1807, it was insisted that the plaintiff should, agreeably to the prayer of the bill, either obtain a conveyance, or be paid for his improvements.
    Whiteside for Finley.
    The yearly value of the lot, and $100, ought to be decreed to Finley, as he was a purchaser for valuable consideration, and the balance, malting up the value of the lot decreed to the plaintiff. Knox would then keep his lot, and both Finley, who purchased of Knox, as well as Hunter, would be sufficiently compensated.
   Overton, J.

At March term, 1807, when the issues were tried, stated to the jury, that agreeably to the modern practice in equity, answers are uniformly read to the jury. The general rule in relation to which, is, that there must be two witnesses to disprove a fact stated in an answer, or one witness corroborated by circumstances. Though this is the general rule with the court, who cannot like a weigh the credibility of testimony,it is not conclusive on the jury, and they may find one way or the other, as they may judge the weight of evidence lies, taking into view the answers which are taken as true, in such parts as are responsive to the bill, unless disproved. At that time he was also of opinion, that, the title of Finley should be voidable, in consequence of his having purchased with notice, and vested in the plaintiff. That Finley should pay all costs, except the costs of Knox’s answer, which he should pay himself.

Campbell, J. Dubitatur.

White, J. absent, having been employed as counsel. Continued until this term, when.

Campbell, J. consented that a decree might pass agreeably to the opinion as delivered above, 
      
       SeeContra Sugden, 505 but see 2 Caine's C. E. 70.
     
      
       6 John. 523. Hardin 530,544.
     