with all the appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining to the only proper use, benefit and behalf of the said her heirs and assigns forever, and the said grantors in and by their said deed covenanted with the said her heirs and assigns that they were lawfully seized in fee of the said premises and had a good right to convey the same, that they were free from all incumbrance and that for the consideration in the said deed named the title thereof to the said her heirs and assigns against all lawful claims whatsoever would forever warrant and defend and which said deed was afterwards and on the said 29th. day of September A. D. 1841, by the said grantors therein duly acknowledged before a Justice of the peace in and for the County of and State of in which the said granted premises were situated and by them then and there delivered to the said and by her caused to be duly recorded in the proper recording office of the said County of on the 30th. day of September A. D. 1841, all of which will more fully and at large appear, reference being had to the said deed a copy whereof and of the certificate of acknowledgement thereto annexed duly certified from the records of the proper recording office of the said County of is hereto annexed marked “No. 1” exhibit” is hereto annexed and hereby made a part of this respondant’s answer.
This defendant further answering says:—
That before and at the time of the making and delivery of the said deed as aforesaid the said was the owner in fee of the said premises and in the actual possession thereof and that by virtue of the conveyance aforesaid the title <to> of said premises vested in and passed to the said , her heirs and assigns forever.
This defendant further answering says:
That this defendant is wholly ignorant as to whether at the time of the making of the said deed to the said Smith was indebted to the complainants, and therefore cannot either admit or deny the same, and requires the complainants to make full and strict proof of said alledged indebtedness of the said Smith to the complainants, but this defendant says, that the said deed was made and delivered long before the pretended recovery of the judgement mentioned in the said bill and that the said Smith could not therefore at the time of the making of the said deed have been indebted to the complainants on the alledged judgement in the said bill mentioned.
This defendant further answering from his best information and belief denies that the said Joseph Smith purchased the said premises in the said deed described from the said and or either of them or that he ever paid for the said land the consideration mentioned in said deed or any part of it or any other consideration whatever [p. 629]