
    Sion Murphy v. Joseph and Lotty Price.
    A sheriff’s deed under an execution, which should have conveyed the land of an intestate, but by mistake was made to oonvey that of his administrator, was not permitted to pass the land of the intestate.
    Where there was a variance between a judgment and execution, and the sheriff’s title under them; if the error were in the judicial records, then the Court might allow them to be amended ; but otherwise, where the mistake was in the sheriff’s deed, which is matter in pais.
    
    Before O’Neall, J., at Union, Fall Term, 1839.
    Trespass to try title to land formerly belonging to Jobn Prince, the defendant’s father, who died intestate! The plaintiff proved an execution and sale of the land at the suit of Sion Murphy v. Isaac Pearson, administrator of the deceased, and, showing how they came into his possession, rested his claim upon the sheriff’s titles. The sheriff’s deed recited the execution, “ Sion Murphy v. Isaac Pearson, Administrator of John Prince, deceased,” and stated a seizure and sale, as of the land of the defendant in the execution. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was ordered, “ because the sheriff’s deed did not convey the land of John Prince, deceased, but the land of Isaac Pearson.” “ The plaintiff moved,” says the presiding judge, “ to amend the deed so as to conform to the execution and judgment; but I thought I had no right to amend a conveyance. The execution, or judgment, being records of the court, I cotdd amend; but over a matter enpais I thought I had no authority.”
    The plaintiff appealed for error in ordering the nonsuit and refusing permission to amend; but—
    
      Thompson and DatvMns, for the motion;
    Herndon, contra.
    
      
       -2 Bail. 494; Harp. 478. An.
      
    
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.,

confirmed the decision of the Court below; Gantt, Richardson, Evans, and Butler, JJ., concurring. Earle, absent.  