
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1803.
    Hairston v. Hairston.
    In trespass to try title, where the plaintiff claims under a sheriff’s title,' the sheriff’s return to the- execution cannot be received in evidence to contradict his deed, by shewing that there had been no sale : and evidence, that the purchase money had not been paid, is also inadmissible, because irrelevant; as it cannot affect the title, and concerns only the sheriff, the purchaser, and the judgment creditor.
    Action to try titles to land, tried in Abbeville district, before Tkezevant, J. The plaintiff claimed the land under a conveyance from the sheriff of Abbeville county, made pursuant to a sale by execution. The judgment which authorized the execution, was produced, and also an order made by Ramsay, J., in the district court of Abbeville, directing the said county sheriff to make the conveyance in question, in pursuance of the sale before made by him.- The production of this order in evidence on the trial, was objected to by the defendant; and it was contended on bis behalf, that the district court had no power to coerce the county sheriff lo make me conveyance. And further, that the court had no authority, in any case, to order a specific execution ot a contract in regard to lands ; or to ordei titles to be made.
    The i.cfeodant also offered evidence to prove that no sale of the land was ever made viz.: the return of the sheiiff on the execution, to that effect ; and also-, to shew that the terms of sal© were not complied with, the purchaser having failed to pay the money bin for the land. This evidence the court refused to admit.
    The motion in this couri was tor a new trial. Ga.ntt, for the defendant, contended that ihe order, in consequence of which the title in question was made by the sheriff, was unconstitutional, and ought not to have precluded an inquiry into the validity of the sale: and tllai the evidence offered to that purpose, ought to have been admitted.
    Bowits. c mtra.
    
    'ihe order was legally made. The courts are empowered m proceed in a summary way against sheriffs, by the act oi I7yl, for neglect, or malpractice. The refusing to make title to a fair purchaser at a sheriff’s sale, who offers to comply with Ihe terms ol sale, must he considerod as a inis>easanee; and the court, whose officer or servant he is, may lawluily coerce him to do what he ought to do, or punish him for contumacy or neglect. The conveyance when made must depend on the validity and propriety of the sale ; and will derive no additional strength from the circumstance of its being made m consequence of an order of court. By the abolition of county courts, the offices of the judges of those courts were extinguished. Suits depending in them were transierred ; and all powers not necessarily extinguished by the abolition of those courts, were tiansferred. Some of the pow ers of those courts have been expressly transferred, and vested in different jurisdictions. S..me other powers are tacitly or impliedly transferred to the present district courts. The power of calling upon the former county court sheriffs, in cases where they would be liable to be called on by the county courts, in case they now had existence, a.,d of proceeding against such sin-riffs, by rule or otheryvise, must be considered as transferred and vested in the district courts. See ac:s of 179o and 1799.
   By the court.

The evidence offered by the defendant was not relevant. The return of the sheriff on the writ of execution, was not properl} admissible to contradict his deed. The evidence offered to shew that the terms of sale had not been complied with an the part of the purchaser, by payment of the money bid for the land, could avail nothing in this case; because the defendant, against whom 'he execution was issued, and under which the land ■was sold, is at all events exonerated from so much of bis debt as the land was sold for : and the matter in dispute lies between the sheriff and the purchaser, and the judgment creditor.

It is unnecessary, therefore, to determine any thing as to the legality of the order made by the district court, directing the she. riff to convey ; for whether that order was illegal, or otherwise, the evidence offered by the defendant could avail him nothing: the conveyance in question could not be invalidated or impaired by it.

Motion dischurg :d.  