The parties in their bill and answer agree, that the defendant, Frederick, had purchased the tract of land in question, from the defendant, Robert B. Wallace, and paid up the purchase money, and that the latter, by way of conveying the title to Frederiсk, assigned over to him the deed made to him Wallace, by Alexander Wallace, under which he claimed, and each party at the time believing such a transfer of the deed was a sufficiеnt conveyance. They further agree that after such salе to Frederick, R. B. Wallace conveyed the land to his brothеr, Mathew Wallace, one of the defendants. The bill charges, that the plaintiff purchased the land from Frederick, who cоnveyed it to him by deed duly executed. This is not denied. It further charges thаt if Mathew is a purchaser of the land from his brother, he purchаsed with full notice of the equity of both Frederick and the plaintiff. The answers 'are, that after the sale by R. B. Wallace, to the dеfendant, Frederick, and' before the sale of the former tо the defendant, Mathew Wallace, the contract betwеen the two former was rescinded, and that Frederick directеd R. B. Wallace to sell the land and pay him back his money. The dеfendant, Mathew, denies that at the- time he made his purchase, he knew of the equitable title of the defendant, Frederick, оr of the plaintiff, but states, a the fact is that he, Mathew Wallace, was informed that the contract was rescinded, as he now alleges the fact to be, and was then informed that the complainant said he would risk the title,, though he knew at the time he purchased from Frederick that the contract had been rescinded. Both the defendants rely upon the alleged rescinding of the original contract, and both by their answers admit, for they do not allеge the contrary, that the contract of recision was by рarol.
*254 The Act of 1819 makes void “ all contracts to sell or convey lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them, unless suсh contract or some memorandum or note thereof shall be put in writing,” &c. • By his purchase from R. B. Wallace, and by the assignment by the latter of the deed from Alexander Wallace, Frederiсk acquired such an interest in the land as brought it within the exceptions of the Act, and it could not be conveyed by him so as to transfеr a title either at law or in equity to another, unless by some writing. If, therеfore, the rescinding did take place, as alleged by the dеfendants, it did not alter the relation ■ existing between the parties by the sale. The equitable title of Frederick still remained in him, and hе transferred it by a regular deed to the plaintiif. . The answer of Mathew Wallace sufficiently shows, that at the time he made his contract, he not only knew of the sale to Frederick, but of the рurchase from him by the plaintiff. His allegation, that at that time the contract between his brother and Frederick had been rescinded, cannot alter the relation in which he stood to the trаnsaction. He knew that it was by parol, and was bound to know that under the law, it was void. He was, therefore, a purchaser with full knowledge of the equity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief he asks.
Per Curiam. Decree accordingly.