Opinion
(December Term, 1828.)
1. A purchaser at a sheriff's sale can assign his bid, and a deed by the sheriff to the assignee vests the title in him.
2. An executor can purchase the goods of his testator at an execution sale.
DETINUE for a slave, tried on the last circuit, before STRANGE, J. The plaintiff produced a judgment and execution against one John B. Blount, as executor of one Muse, and a bill of sale from the sheriff to him. The defendant claimed under a bill of sale made to him by the administrator de bonis non of Muse. For the defendant it was proved that the plaintiff was not the purchaser at the sheriff's sale, but that the negro had been stricken off to one Hoskins, who swore that he was requested by Blount, the executor, and the defendant in the execution, to bid off the slave for him; that he, Hoskins, being unwilling the purchase should stand in his name, applied to Blount to substitute another, who told him that he, being the executor, could not buy at the sale, and if the witness was unwilling the execution should be returned with his name as the purchaser, that of Blount's son, the present plaintiff, should be substituted. The sheriff stated, that the execution was discharged by John B. Blount — and that after his death, under the advice of counsel, the bill of sale to the plaintiff was executed.
No counsel appeared for the appellant.
Kinney for the plaintiff.
FROM CHOWAN.
His honor instructed the jury that the production of the judgment, execution and bill of sale, with proof that the slave was the property of the defendant in the execution, prima facie vested the title in the plaintiff, and that if they could infer from the testimony that Hoskins was the real bidder, and had assigned his purchase to John B. Blount, by whom it had been transferred to the plaintiff, and that the sheriff had executed the bill of sale in pursuance of these transfers, it vested (20) the legal title in the plaintiff, as the fact that John B. Blount was the executor of Muse, did no prevent him from purchasing the assets at an execution sale.
A verdict being returned for the plaintiff, and judgment entered according to it, the defendant appealed.
It must be taken for granted that more was proved on the trial than appears upon the record, and it is unnecessary to send up any statement of facts unconnected with those questions of law which are made by the case. From the facts set forth it does not appear that the plaintiff has any title to the property in question. The sheriff made him a bill of sale, but he did so only because he was advised to do it. It does not appear that the plaintiff bid off the property, or paid for it. But I presume there was more evidence offered, because the Judge instructed the jury, that if they could infer that the real bidder (21) transferred his right to the plaintiff, and that in consequence thereof the sheriff made him a bill of sale that gave him the legal title. The jury have passed upon the facts under this charge, and have found for the plaintiff, and as no exception can be taken to the charge, and as the Judge was not dissatisfied with the verdict, the rule for a new trial must be discharged.
PER CURIAM. No Error.
Cited: Clarke v. Clarke, 17 N.C. 412; Bailey v. Morgan, 44 N.C. 356.