
    * Richard Richardson, et al., v. Ed. Broughton.
    Where a person goes into the possession of land, under a conditional agreement to purchase it, he cannot hold, adversely to the claim of the person under whom he went into possession, so as to acquire a title by the statute of limitations.
    
    Where a person claims land under a sheriff’s sale, the judgment and execution, under which the land was sold, must be adduced, 
    
    Tried at Sumter, Spring Term, 1820, before Mr. Justice Oolcock.
    This was an action of trespass to try title to a tract of one hundred acres of land.
    On the part of the plaintiff, was produced :
    1. A grant to Robert Murphey, dated 29th October, 1776, for one hundred acres.
    2. A deed from the grantee to William Dukes, in 1780.
    3. A deed from Dukes and wife, to R. Richardson, dated 4th October, 1810.
    It appeared that Dukes was in possession before the year 1792. That after him, William Oanty and his wife came into possession. Oanty died and wife continued in possession, except for a short time, during which she was married to John Bradley, She returned to the land, and they lived on it, until about six or eight years ago, when they left it, and removed from this country. About the year 1790, or 1791, Mrs. Oanty bought the land of William Dukes, her brother, and gave him a negro. The purchase was conditional, but she went into possession and remained in it without any written title from Dukes. In 1810, she sold the land to Ool. Richardson, the father of the plaintiffs, and wrote a letter, which was produced, to Dukes, requesting him to make titles to Richardson, as she was satisfied for the land. There was also produced, a receipt, by Mrs. Bradley and her husband, to Col. Richardson for $360 in full, for this land. This receipt was witnessed by the. defendant, and Mr. Matthew James proved the handwriting. He said the W was not such as he *now pímjo made, but that he was satisfied from the rest of the characters that it *- was his writing.
    On the part of the defendant, was produced a receipt of John Conyers, sheriff of the district, for $55, dated 3d October, 1808, and a title from Hartwell Macon, the successor in office of John Oonyers, for one hundred acres of land, dated 11th October, 1815. These papers were proved by Macon, who said he knew nothing of the transaction, but from the receipt, and that Bradley remained in possession after the sheriff’s sale, to the time of his leaving the State. No judgment and execution were produced.
    The jury were instructed to find a verdict for the plaintiff, which they did and a motion was now made for a new trial, on several grounds, which are reducible to this: That the Court misdirected the jury, inasmuch as the long possession vested a title in Bradley, and the sale by the sheriff was good.
    
      Levy, for the motion. Miller, contra.
    
      
       7 Rich. 187.
    
    
      
      
         Nance v. Reardon, ante, 299. Barkley v. Scriven, 1 Nott & M’Cord, 408.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

ColoocK, J.

The plaintiff’s title was complete ; but it was objected, that Dukes could not convey, inasmuch as Bradley and wife, by their long possession, had acquired a title. Mrs. Bradley went in under a conditional agreement to purchase; she would not therefore, be permitted to claim adversely to Dukes. But neither she nor her husband have pretended to do so. They abandoned the land, and agreed that Dukes should convey to the plaintiff. No fraud was proven, or even insinuated, in Bradley and Dukes.

Even if this possession could be considered as adverse, the defendant’s title was imperfect. It is indispensably necessary to produce the judgment and execution, under which the land is sold, to perfect a sheriff’s title.

But it is clear, that if Conyers ever had a right to sell, — that is, if he ever had an execution against Bradley, — that the purchase by Broughton *41*11 was a mere C0Yer for Bradley; for his receipt for the money paid -* *to Conyers is dated 3d October, 1808, and on the 6th of November, 1810, he witnessed a receipt from Bradley and wife, to Richardson, for the consideration money paid for this very land. Can it be believed that, if he had seriously bought the land in 1808, that he would have witnessed a transfer of it to another by Bradley, and not have interposed his claim ?

The motion is dismissed.

Nott, Johnson and HugeR, JJ., concurred.

Gantt, J., absent, from indisposition.  