
    A. Perry, Sheriff, vs. F. & E. Williams.
    Where the plaintiff in execution indemnifies the sheriff in levying, and purchases the property without paying the money, at a sufficient sum to cover his debt, it operates as a satisfaction of the execution, though, in fact, the property did not belong to the defendant, and the plaintiff was forced to pay for it again, upon his bond of indemnity.
    Sheriff sales are without warranty, and he who purchases buys nothing more than the title of the defendant in execution.
    BEFORE EARLE, J., AT LANCASTER, FALL TERM, 1837.
    This was a sci. fa. to revive a judgment. The judgment originally was against several defendants, E. Williams, E. Williams, and G-. Williams, and was signed 14th January, 1825, execution lodged 14th February of the same year, for two hundred and thirty dollars/the amount of the penalty, and thirty-three dollars and sixty cents for costs.
    The defence was, that the execution bad been; satisfied ; that funds bad come into the bands of the sheriff, which ought to have been applied to it. The defendants offered in evidence four other executions against the same defendants, and at the suit of the same plaintiff, lodged 12th of January,. 1826, and levied on three negroes, viz: Washington, Pelina, and Jailey, on the 13th of the same month. Of two of these last executions, B Lanier, and D. W. Faris were the real plaintiffs and the sheriff, John Sims, was'indemnified in the sale of the negroes, by A. Perry, B. Lanier, and D. W..Faris. They were sold — Jailey and Pelina were purchased by Lanier for two hundred dollars ; Wasbington was purchased by Perry, for four hundred and sixt,y three dollars. The money was not paid into the sheriff’s office, as they were the plaintiffs in the executions. An action was subsequently brought against the sheriff, by George Williams, sr., for selling the negroes, and a recovery bad of one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars; which sum was finally paid by the plaintiffs who indemnified, and they retained the negroes.
    The amount of Perry’s purchase, if paid into the sheriff’s office, as it would have been if be had not been the plaintiff, would'much more than have discharged the judgment sought to be revived; and bis Honor thought that the plaintiff should submit to the operation of the same rule, that he could not occupy any better situation than a stranger, who might have bought what the sheriff at bis instance offered for sale.
    The jury, under the instructions of the court, found for tbe defendants.
    The plaintiff appealed, and moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
    1st. Because bis Honor erred in charging the jury that the amount for which the negroes were sold should have been applied by the sheriff to the satisfaction of executions against the defendants; as it was in evidence that they belonged to another person, who bad recovered their value from the sheriff since the sale made by him; and besides, it was also in evidence, that the purchasers at the sheriff’s sale, were those who indemnified the sheriff, did not pay their bids, being the real plaintiffs in the executions, and those who paid and satisfied the recovery against the sheriff.
    2d. Because as the defendants were not the owners of the negroes sold by the sheriff, they cannot legally insist that they should have a credit on executions against them for the amount of the sales.
    Clinton, for the motion.
    
      Williams, contra.
   Curia, per Evans, J.

The rule in sheriff’s sales is caveat emptor. The sheriff sells the interest of the defendant in the property, and the purchaser buys it, be it more or less. In the case of Moore vs. Aiken, 2 Hill, although it appeared that the defendant had no tifie, yet Aiken, who was the purchaser, was bound to pay his bid. Perry purchased whatever title E. Williams, the defendant, had to the negro. The contract was perfected by delivery, and he was bound by it. if the sheriff suffered him to take the negro without paying, the sheriff was answerable, and would have been compelled to pay, had there been an older execution. In this case, Perry’s was the oldest execution, and entitled him to the money; and for this reason he was permitted to take the negro without payment. If a third person had bought, and the money had been paid, would not the fi. fa. have been satisfied ? Certainly. Can it make any difference that Perry received the negro, instead of the money ? I think not. In Davis vs. Hunt, (2 Bailey, 412,) the purchaser was hel,d bound to pay, although he bought his own land, and did so under the supposition that his fa. fa. was the oldest. The principle of this case came up incidentally in the Appeal Court, in May, 1880, in the Equity case of Rowe vs. Cockrell. In that case it is said, “the sheriff is not bound to become a trespasser; and where an adverse claim is set up to the property, he is not bound to levy and sell without indemnity. But if he does sell, the oldest execution is entitled to the -money.”

When the sheriff’s sale is perfected, the oldest executions in his office are satisfied to the amount of the sale. But it is contended that as he indemnified the sheriff, and had to pay his bond of indemnity, a different rule should prevail. It may be a hard case, but the rules of law must prevail. In the case of Adair vs. McDaniel & Cornwell, 1 Bailey, 158, a junior execution creditor indemnified the sheriff and bad to pay bis indemnity, whilst the money went to the older fi. fa. This circumstance, therefore, cannot better the plaintiff’s condition. It may be where the sheriff, without notice of any adverse claim, levies and sells, be may be allowed to keep the money to abide the event of a suit against him by one claiming to be the true owner. But this rule cannot be applied to the case of a purchaser. He buys without warranty, and to the extent of bis bid, where the contract is perfected by delivery, as was done in this case, the executions are satisfied. If the sheriff afterwards bad levied and sold, bis sale would have been void. When the sheriff has sold of defendants property sufficient to satisfy the execution, its authority ceases. This was decided in the case of Hunter vs. Stevenson, 1 Hill, 415. When once satisfied, it cannot be revived by showing that the property, by the sale of which the satisfaction was made, did.not belong to defendant. This would be putting the defendant in the position of a warrantor. A case of a defendant’s fraudulently procuring the property of a third person to be levied on and sold, to satisfy bis own debts, would probably require a different rule; but that does not apply to this case, there being no allegation of that kind.

The motion is dismissed.  