Welch v. Watkins and Pickett.
A note was given by tile Plaintiff to Watkins for lands, which, it turned out, Tí atldns never had : Watkins cannot recover oil the note, and as the note (being for the delivery of specific articles) was un-uegntiable, Pickett is subject to the same objection.
Tin- bill staled that Watkins pretended to be possessed of lands on the Cumberland river, of good quality, and enticed the Complainant to purchase 1000 acres, for which the Complainant gaye a note to deliver a good wagon and team by such a day, Watkins at the same time giving bis bond to make a title. Afterwards, Watkins was applied to for the title, but did not make it, and in fact was found to possess no land, and confessed he bad not any there ; but before this, he liad endorsed the note to Pickett. Watkins failed to answer, and ihe bill was taken pro cmifesso as u> him. Pickett answered, and insisted he had purchased the note for a valuable conside*424ration. The. bill further set forth, that Vickelt, in the name of Watkins, had obtained judgment upon the note for pounds, and had received Jl80 and had after-wards taken out execution for the ful! amount of the judg-menU
Per curiam
The bill states, and it is not denied, that the note was given for lands sold, to which the vendor cannot make a title. He cannot therefore in equity, demand payment of the money, and is not entitled to a recovery of it. in the next place, this note is not negotiable, and therefore, Pickett stands in the same place as Watkins himself did with respect to the note, ami all equitable defences that might have been set up against it.— It is immaterial to Welch, whether he gave a valuable consideration for it or not to Watkins. Wherefore let the injunction be made perpetual. Had the prayer of this bill extended far enough, we would have made Pickett refund the money lie has received.
Noth. — Vide Jordan v. Black & Hormblow, 2 Mur. 30.