From ’Wayne. The bill stated, that Joseph Bennet was seised of a tract of land, which he purchased of Jesse Grantham, and on the llfli of December 1.792, conveyed to Complainant twenty acres thereof, describing it by metes and bounds; afterwards Complainant came to an agreement with Bennet, for the purchase of the residue, 137 acres, at the rate of one dollar per acre, and on the 10th of May, 1794, Bennet executed to Complainant, a deed for the same, describing i1 by metes…
Decided 1824-06-05
Hall, Judge.
¶1
No doubt can be entertained, but that it was the intention of the parties, that the whole of Bonnet’s land should be conveyed to the Complainant j but the circumstances attending the purchase, (let Ben-net’s character have been ever so bad.) were so oppres
*198
sive, as that he could not be considered a free, agent in making the sale. And although in the present proceed-.ngS tjie saje w!,£c|]k })(, made, cannot be disturbed ; yet j the Court ought not to assist in rectifying a mistake, w hich was made in the deed obtained under, such circumstances.
¶2
It may be asked, whether Bennet shall retain the money paid and the land also. The answer is, that the bill is not so framed, as that relief can be. given as to the money paid
•,
if it were, and the Complainant proffered to reconvey the land, which was conveyed to him, an enquiry of that sort would be made ; or if there were a cross Bill, Í should be for rescinding the contract j and decreeing the money paid to be returned. As that is not done, and the Complainant wishes tine contract to be fully carried into effect; for the reasons before given, I think the bill ought to be dismissed.
