Den on Demise of Murphy v. Barnett

delivered the opinion of the Court:

M e think the decision of this case rests on a plain principle of law ; and that as h ,+h parties claim directly from Thomas Barnett, they are privies in estate, and it ■ is not competent to either, as such, to deny his title. Tiie Defendant has accepted a deed from him, which admits the title, and estops him from denying it afterwards for a person may be estopped by matter in pais, as wel, as by indenture or writing. The doctrine as applied to tills case, appears highly reasonable, since nothing bnt *253 ihe truth ought to be alledged by any man in his de-fence, and what he has alledged must be presumed to be true, and he ought not to contradict it. a new trial be discharged. Let the rale for