Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Dille et al. v. Woods et al. widow, and convey to said children their respective proportions of the land." The proof was, that at the date of the assignment, Woods lived on the land with Pence, to whem he was indebted, and requested Pence to make arrangements to pay the balance due upon it; that he proposed to assign the title bond to him, and when the sons, John and William, came of age, they were to repay him, and to have the land, and to pay each of the girls something; and "the widow was to have her support off the lands." "The assignment (says Pence) was made upon these conditions." The bill alleges an agreement to convey to each of the children. The proof sustains an agreement to convey to two only. By the allegata of the bill, all the complainants had a joint right to pursue an interest in the land, and to have a joint decree for the title. By the proof, the girls were to have a claim for something against John and William, whe alone were to have the title. The point was not particularly brought to our attention on the original hearing, and the question escaped a critical examination. It is, nevertheless, fatal to the decree. The proofs and allegations, in chancery as well as at law, must correspond. The evidence of Armstrong does not, in this respect, aid that of Pence. Nor did the facts, which shewed a right in John and William only, justify a decree of title in favor of the other heirs of Woods. Another exception is, that the decree makes no provision to secure Dille, in whatever equity Ponce may have had in the land, at the date of his mortgage. As the case stood, we were not aware that he had any equitable claim, nor are we now sure that he had. After the assignment by Woods to him, he occupied and enjoyed the premises, and received the rents and profits...