
    Hughes vs. Bryan’s lessee.
    
    When an execution was issued upon a judgment rendered by a justice Of the peace of North Carolina by a justice of the peace of this State, and the defendant in such execution obtained a certiorari and superse-deas thereto, and the same was granted on motion by the circuit court, and judgment given against the plaintiff therein for costs, said plaintiff not being notified of said proceedings in court: Held that such judgment for costs, and a sale of land founded thereon, is void, and passes no title to the purchaser.
    John Bryan, the lessor of the plaintiff below, is the grantee of six hundred and forty acres of land in Madison county. . He obtained a judgment in the State of North Carolina against one Winford, in 1817, before a justice of the peace for thirty-five dollars, execution issued thereon, and was returned no property found. Win-Word moved to Madison county, Tennessee. Bryan moved to Warren county, Tennessee, and placed this judgment in the hands of one of the constables in Madison county for collection. He applied to Wilborn, a justice of the peace for said county, who issued an execution against Winford upon the North Carolina judgment, which was levied upon his occupant claim, no personal property being found. The county court condemned the land to be sold. Winford petitioned the circuit court for a certiorari and supersedeas, at July term, 1828, which was granted, and returned during the same term. A motion was mode at the same term by Winford to quash the execution of Bryan, which was done, and judgment entered against Bryan for the costs, without the knowledge of Bryan. Upon this judgment an execution issued, upon which the clerk has endorsed the fees in an aggregate amount, not specifying each item separately, upon which said land was sold and purchased by Hughes, the plaintiff in error. The judge charged the jury, that the judgment for costs in the circuit court under which defendant claimed title, was void, and could not sustain a sale made under it; and that the said sale founded on said judgment, was void, because there was not a copy of the fees of the clerk and other costs endorsed thereon as required by law. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, from which the defendant appealed in the nature of a writ of error to this court.
    
      W. Stoddart and M. Brown, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      P. M. Miller, for the defendant in error.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On examination of the record of the recovery of costs on which the levy and sale was made, it is evident that said recovery was had without notice to Bryan, the lessor of the plaintiff; it was therefore void, and the execution, sale, and deed of the sheriff also void. This point being against the plaintiff in error, is decisive of the case, inasmuch as it defeats his title; Bryan, the plaintiff below* having prevailed.

Judgment affirmed.  