Butler v. O'Hear
Opinion of the Court
A motion was made for a re-hearing, and was argued by Mr. Pringle and general Pinckney for complainant; and by Mr. Ford and Mr. Read for defendant. It was urged on the part of complainant, that Mr. O’Hcar having no notice of the trust to M'Queen at the time lie made the purchase from Mr. Butler, could not be affected by the judgments against M‘Queen; and being safe, he ought to perform the contract; and the direction of M‘Queen to convey as Butler should direct, shews a trust for him an a counter security. That after articles for the sale of land are executed, the interest rests in the vendee, and no judgments after the articles and before the execution of titles can affect the land. The common law cannot lay hold of a personal trust estate, though the statute of frauds gives a remedy against the lands by extent. The counsel cited 2 Powell, 56, 61. 1 Chan. Cas. 34, 39. 2 Comyns, 339. 13 Viner, 118, § 7, Title Purchaser. 5 Bac, 583. 2 P. Wms. 81, 618, 678. For the defendant it was argued that the title was in too much obscurity for the court to impose it on the defendant. Here are trusts upon trusts; a conveyance in fee to Williamson, who has no in-
[I have no official statement of the opinion delivered by the court on the motion for a rodtearing; but 1»; is understood to have been rejected.]
Chancellor Hunt died in the summer of 1794, imme - diately after the rising of the court, and the vacancy was not supplied fin* some years. The court continued to be held by chancellors Mathews and Ilutledge.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.