
    ABEL WHITE against MARY WEEKS.
    Where no consideration is expressed in a deed of bargain and sale, parol evidence may be given to show that a consideration did pass from the grantee to the grantor. " (
    Writ of error to the Common Pleas of' Lycoming county.
    , This was an action of ejectment brought by Mary Weeks, the defendant in error, against Abel White.
    
    The plaintiff, in order to make out her title to the land in controversy, offered in evidence a deed of which the following is a copy, together with parol evidence of the consideration thereof.
    “I do hereby sell, assign, transfer and set over unto Mary Weeks, any piece, tract or parcel of land which may be found to belong to me, as part of my purchase of the estate of Jesse Weeks, deceased; provided nevertheless, that this grant shall not be taken or construed in any manner to interfere with Samuel M‘Lees, or to include any land granted, or intended to be granted in my deed, dated 30th July, 1825, to said Samuel MLees. ,
    
    
      “ Witness my hand and seal, January 14th, 1826.
    “ Elijah Babbitt,” [seal.]
    This evidence was objected to by the defendant, the objection was overruled by the court, and exception taken.
    
      Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
    No particular set of words are necessary to constitute a deed of bargain and sale. 1 Wils. Bac. Ab. 468. Jackson v. Alexander, 3 - Johns. Rep. 484. To the validity of such a deed a valuable consideration' is essential. 1 Wils. Bac. Ab. 469. Jackson v. Sebring, 
      16 Johns. Rep. 515, And that consideration must be expressed in -the body of the deed; no parol evidence can be given thereof, unless it be contained in the deed, that a consideration did pass, then only can it be proved by parol what that consideration was. Moore v. Bieham, 4 Bin. 1. Peake’s Ev. 121. Mildmay’s Case, 1 Coke’s Rep. 176. 1 Phil. Ev. 495. Sears v. Brink, 3 Johns. Rep. 211. 1 Phil. Ev. 501 — 2. 3 Stark. Ev. 995-7.
    The statute of frauds and perjuries would be violated, in its spirit, by the admission of parol evidence to make this a good deed. If the consideration can be supplied by parol, so may also any other material part. The quality of the estate granted may be made out by parol, or the quantity of the land increased or diminished. The practice of expressing the consideration in the deed is almost universal, hence is a strong proof of its necessity.
    
      Anthony, for defendant in error.
    A deed under seal imports a consideration, whether expressed or not. Robts. on Fraud. Con. 119; but if it is not expressed, it may be proved by parol. 11 Coke’s Rep. 24 — 5. Jacksoti v. Fish, 10 Johns. Rep. 456. Hartley v. MAnulty, 4 Ye'ates, 95. 3 Stark. Ev. 1004. Davenport v. Mason, 15 Mass. 92. 1 Phil. Ev. 481-2. Langley v. Brown, 2 Atks. 202.
    In Moore v. Bieham, 4 Bin. 1, this question is not raised, much less decided, for in that case the parol evidence was not offered.
    If the deed was defective for want of an expressed consideration, the defendant could not take advantage of it.
   Judgment affirmed.  