¶1Upon the first question, I think the . , , , _ , law was rightly settled in this pase, m the old General Court, in April, 1774, that the conveyance was not valid, and the maxim is that equity follows the law : and, therefore, upon. the second question, the plaintiff cannot be aided in this Court. . And as to the third question, if the purchase-money was paid, it created no lien upon the land, because the plaintiff neither derived a legal nor an equitable right thereto: and be must be left to his remedy at law.
4 Va. 444
M'Rae v. Farrow
Decided June 15, 1809
Virginia Chancery Court · decided 1809-06-15
IN this case these questions occurred: 1. Whether a A convevance by two of three executors, all of whom had ' . qualified and were living, (the testator having directed the , ' , , , , , . sale and conveyance to be made by /its executors, m general terms,) was valid in law ? 2. If it was not, could it be aided in equity? and, 3. If it could not, did the purchase-money, if paid, create a lien on the land, which would subject it in equity to the repayment of the money ?
Decided 1809-06-15