232
1801, she obtained a decree in the county court of Not-toway, against John Patterson, administrator of oneAnderson, for 50 1. with interest from February 1st 1801;and for 22L, with interest from 5th July 1801. That in1812, she gave to Peter Bland, an order for the money,who had received it, and had never paid it over; he is adefendant to the bill. Living at that time in the familyof Charles D. George, who was a witness to the orderto Bland; he [George] fraudulently obtained from heran assignment of the debt; promising her Si50 for herinterest; she executed the assignment, without under-standing its import, [being wholly illiterate.] Georgeassigned this paper to James Rice; both are made de-fendants, and required to answer.
George admits in his answer, that he was to give.hut35150 for the claim; he says, he had paid about §50, inconsumable commodities, meal &c.
Anri i.1821 .
George
v
Richardson.'
Bland admits the allegations of the bill as to him;that he had received the money, and would have account-ed, but for the conflict of the claims; and was at alltimes ready &c.
Rice says, he was accidentally called by George, towitness the assignment to him by the plaintiff; that itwas read to her; and she was satisfied with it; thatGeorge then proposed to sell it to him; and that hebought it for 801., for which he gave his bond.
On general replications to the answers, without depo-sitions, the Chancellor decreed, that Bland should payover to the plaintiff the 501. with interest from 1st Jan-uary 1806; and the 221., with interest from 5th July1801; deducting a small sum due Bland by agreement.Georgs and Rice appealed.
May, for the appellant, cited Whitehorn v. Hines, (a)to shew, that a subsequent purchaser, was not affectedby the fraud of a prior holder: and therefore Rice ’s claim
Ca) 1 Munf. 557.