Statewide County NcArchives Court.....Strong, Vs. Glasgow 1811-18 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 12, 2008, 11:45 pm Source: North Carolina Reports Written: 1811-18 JUNE TERM, 1813. STRONG and others v. GLASGOW and others. A agrees with B at a sheriff's sale to bid off the property sold, for B. He bids it off, and takes a conveyance to himself, and then refuses to convey to B. As B is not privy to the conveyance, he is not bound by it; and he may produce parol evidence to prove this agreement between A and himself. The bill charged that William Sheppard, the father of the complainant, being considerably indebted, with a view to make payment, came to an agreement with B. Sheppard, to convey to him a tract of land, for which B. Sheppard was to convey to W. Sheppard two other tracts, of inferior value by £800; to satisfy which difference, B. Sheppard was to pay off all the debts, and indemnify W. Sheppard from them. That soon after the agreement, W. Sheppard died, and one of his creditors obtained judgment and took out execution, which was levied on his slaves; and at the sale B. Sheppard, intending to perform his agreement, bid off twelve slaves at £133, for the benefit of the complainants; that he took an absolute bill of sale from the sheriff to himself, but that the purchase was really made in trust and for the benefit of the complainants. And the case was sent to this Court upon the question, whether parol evidence could be received to prove the agreement and set up the trust for the complainants. By the Court. This case is not influenced by the principles that decided the case of Streator v. Jones, 5 N. C., 449. The complainants allege that the defendant, B. Sheppard, contrary to the agreement he had entered into, which was to purchase the property for the complainants, took an absolute deed to himself. They were not privy to that deed, and of course not bound by it. They are therefore at liberty to produce parol evidence to establish the original contract. Cited: Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N. C., 227. Additional Comments: North Caroline Reports, Vol. 6, Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Reported by A.D. Murphey, Annotated by Walter Clark. 1811 to 1813, Inclusive and at July Term, 1818. Reprinted by the State. E.M. Uzzell and Company, State printers and binders, 1910. File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/statewide/court/strong572gwl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/ File size: 2.8 Kb