
    DECEMBER TERM 1826.
    John Shamburger v. Alexander Kennedy. adm’r of Wm. Hussey, dec.
    From Moore,
    An agent cannot be appointed by parol to convey real estate for hi* principal. But where a levy on personals was made under a fi. fa, and lands, in lieu thereof, were sold by the Sheriff, without levy of advertisement, at the request of the debtor, and bid off by A, and B paid the sum bid to the Sheriff, under a parol agreement that the Sheriff should convey to him : Held, that as an ojjicial&at of the Sheriff, his deed passed the estate.
    In 1822, one Isham Sheffield obtained judgment and sued out execution thereon against Hussey, the Defendant’s intestate, one Garner, and others. The execution was levied by M’Neil, the Sheriff, upon the personal property of Hussey, who was the principal debtor. On the day of sale, at the request of Hussey, the Sheriff sold his real estate, which had not been levied on, in lieu of the personal property, and the same was purchased by Garner, at a sum greater than the amount of the judgment, and he being then unable to pay, the Sheriff indulged him until the term at which the execution was returnable, at which time the Plaintiff paid to the Sheriff the amount of Garner’s bid, upon an agreement between the Plíúfltifif, Hussey, and Garner, that the Sheriff, or Hussey, or both, as the Plaintiff might prefer, should convey to j1¡m< The piaintiff accordingly took possession of the lands, and the Sheriff executed to him an official deed in the usual form. Afterwards the Defendant’s intestate dying without having released or conveyed, and the Plaintiff supposing that the deed from the Sheriff conveyed no title, brought this action to recover back the money paid.
    On the trial, in the Court below, his honor Judge Nor-wood was of opinion, that the deed from M’JVeil, whether he were considered as Sheriff, acting under the authority of the writ, or as the agent of the Defendant’s intestate, under the parol agreement, was sufficient, under the circumstances, to pass the title, and directed a nonsuitj_ whereupon the Plaintiff appealed.
   Hair, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The deed executed by M’Neil, the Sheriff, to the Plaintiff, being an official act, conveyed a good and valid title — (3 Murph. 507.) In the other view of the case taken by the Judge, supposing the Sheriff did not act officially, but as the agent of Hussey, I do not concur, unless M’JSTeil had been duly authorised, by a written Power of Attorney, to execute the deed for him. An authority by parol would not be sufficient, because titles to land must be evidenced by written conveyances. I think the non-suit ought not to be set aside.

Per curiam,

Judgment aeeirmed.  