
    William M'Elwee v. George J. Sutton.
    A levy made after the term to which the execution was returnable, is void, and vests no title in the sheriff or his vendee. But although the sheriff’s bill of sale recite such a levy as the authority to sell, yet if there were a subsisting and valid levy on the same property, by the same sheriff, under another execution, the purchaser’s title may be referred to the latter, and will be valid.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Earle, at York, Spring Term, 1831.
    Trover for a slave. This case had been remanded for a new trial, (vide supra p. 128,) and was again brought up, after a verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed as purchaser at a fsale by the sheriff; and his bill of sale recited a levy, under ah. execution in favour of M. Nash against James J. Sutton, as the authority to sell. It appeared that this execution was returnable to October term, 1824, but that the levy had not been made until February, 1825 ; and it was contended for the defendant, that the execution was then inoperative, and the levy consequently void. There was, however, at the time of the sale, another execution in the sheriff’s office against James J. Sutton, at the suit of one Ingram, which had been duly levied on the slave in dispute ; and the presiding Judge held, that the sale to the plaintiff might be referred to the valid levy, notwithstanding the recital in the bill of sale.
    The evidence in other respects was alleged to have made a different case from that argued on the former appeal: and the defendant moved for a nonsuit, and new trial, on various grounds; and among others, that the levy under which the plaintiff purchased was void, and that the sale to him therefore vested no title in him.
    Rogers, for the motion,
    cited Sims v. Randall, 2 Bay, 524, Toomer v. Purkey, 1 Mill, 323.
    
      Williams, contra.
    
    The deed of a party may be referred to any p0vver which he possesses for making it, although the deed exP1-essly refer to an invalid authority. Magwood ads. Legge, Ilarp. 116. Maverick v. Austin, 1 Bailey, 59.
   O’Neall, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are satisfied with the result in this case. On the merits the former opinion of the Court settled the questions now raised. The levy and sale under Nash’s execution was certainly irregular ; and if that had been the sheriff’s only authority to sell, the plaintiff’s title would have failed. But there had been a valid levy under Ingram’s execution, and the effect of it was to vest the props rty in the sheriff' for the purpose of a sale in satisfaction of that execution. Having this right of property, the sheriff could at any time sell, and the purchaser’s title is good.

Motion refused.  