
    James E. Henry v. Miles Ferguson.
    Columbia,
    May, 1830.
    A purchaser at a sheriff’s sale is not required to examine into the regularity of the proceedings, on which the judgment, under which the sale is made, was founded. Nor can third persons take advantage of irregularities in them.
    Tried before Mr. Justice O’Neall, at Spartanburgh, Spring Term, 1830.
    Tims was an action of trespass to try title. The plaintiff claimed by purchase at a sale by the sheriff, made under an execution against Elias Palmer at the suit of William Palmer. The execution issued upon a judgment rendered on a scire facias to revive a former judgment: and the record being produced, jt appeared, that the scire facias had been served by posting a copy on the door of the court-house,' conformably to the provisions of the act of 1792, 1 Faust, 313, the defendant, Elias Palmer, being without the limits of the State; and that judgment had been awarded at the return of the first scire facias.
    
    It was contended for the present defendant, that where a defendant in scire facias is not personally served, he cannot be made a party in Court, otherwise than by a return of two nihils, as required by the act of 1746, P. L. 212, or the posting of two successive writs, as directed by the act of 1792; and that it was not intended by the act of 1792 to repeal the act of 1746, as to the number of writs, but to substitute a mode of service,'more likely to effect the purpose, of giving notice to the absent defendant. That the judgment, under which the present plaintiff claimed, having been rendered on the return of a single scire faiias, which had not been personally served, was premature and void; and the plaintiff’s purchase under that judgment vested no title in him.
    The presiding Judge sustained the objection,' and ordered a nonsuit; which the plaintiff now moved to set aside, on the grounds: 1. That the judgment was awarded regularly, 2. That-a purchaser at a sheriff’s sale is not bound to look into the regularity of the proceedings prior to the judgment. 3. That the defendant, under any circumstances, could not take advantage of irregularities in the proceedings.
    Irby, for the motion.
    A W.' Thomson, contra.
    
   Colcock, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The motion in this case must be granted. It is not necessary to consider, whether the judgment produced was regular, or not; for it has been repeatedly decided, that third persons cannot inquire into that matter. They are not to look beyond the judgment. If irregular, it may have been so with the knowledge, or consent, of the party. What had this defendant to do with the judgment of William Palmer against Elias Palmer? By what authority does he question its regularity! It was an authority, as long as it stood unreversed, on which to issue an execution.

In Barkley v. Screven, 1 N. & M. 408, Mr. Justice Cheves said, “ the purchaser is not required to look into the regularity of the proceedings. The seal of the Court is evidence enough for him. Nor can objections of this nature be made by third persons, even if the proceedings were clearly irregular:” and he refers to Jackson v. Bartlett, 8 Johns. 361. The same point has been decided in Guignard v. Glover, Harper, 457, and in the case of the Treasurers v. Representatives of Bordeaux, 3 M‘C. 142.

Johnson, J. and Evans, J. concurred.

Motion granted.  