
    CASE 57 — PETITION EQUITY
    JANUARY 17.
    Huston vs. Duncan.
    APPEAL FROM UNION.
    1. A levy on movable property puts the thing levied on in the possession of the officer, either actually or constructively, and, consequently, invests him with a special property.
    2. A levy on land gives the officer no possession, and, consequently, no title.
    3. The death of the owner of land levied on before a sale of the land by the officer passes the whole title to his heirs, and without a revivor against them there is no title subject to sale by the levying officer, who could not pass any title to the purchaser. Such a sale, therefore, must be void.
    George Huston, T. N. & D. W. Lindsey, For Appellants,
    CITED—
    2 Bibb, 198; Wagnon vs. McCoy.
    
    3 Dana, 488; Huey vs. Reddin’s heirs.
    
    
      2 Mon., 91; Burton vs. Peyton.
    
    Harvey Yeaman, For Appellees,
    CITED—
    7 Mon., 615; Blight’s heirs vs. Tobin.
    
    
      2 J. J. M., 31; Woodford vs. Phelps.
    
    
      
      3B. Mon., 363 ; Allison vs. Taylor's heirs.
    
    15 B. Mon., 476 ; Walker and wife vs. McKnight.
    
    14 B. Mon., 222 ; Boyer's adm'r vs. Herndon.
    
    6 J. J. M., 321; Kennedy vs. Holloway.
    
    1 Salkeld, 401; Duke of Norfolk's case.
    
    
      2 Lord' Raymond, 849 ; Odes vs. Woodward.
    
    8 P. Williams, 399; Robinson vs. Tongue, fyc,
    
    
      Cro. Eliz., 181; Par Ices vs. Mosse.
    
    7 Term Rep., 20 ; Bragner vs. Langmead.
    
    
      2 Lord Ray., 244; Panoyer vs. Bruce.
    
    1 Salkeld, 322 ; Clark vs. Williers.
    
    3 P. Williams, 399; note e, Earl of Winclesea's case.
    
    
      2 Keble, 516; King vs. Milton.
    
    4 Burrows, 1970 ; Doc. dem., Beyer vs. Roe.
    
    3 Bibb, 344; Irvine, Sf-c., vs. Pickett.
    
    4 Bibb, 94; Con vs. Joiner.
    
    3 Metcalfe, 202; Keeth vs. Wilson.
    
    1 Duvall, 6 ; Golyer vs. Higgins.
    
    
      2 Saund., 51, n. 4; lb., 72, k.
    
    1 Littell's Laws, 539-40.
    1 Morehead Sf Brown, 636.
    
      Sec. 435, Civil Code.
    
    17 B. Mon., 241; Morgan, fyc., vs. Winn's adm'r.
    
    1 Duvall, 195; Venable vs. Smith's ex'ors.
    
    5 Dana, 275; Addison, fyc., vs. Crow, fyc.
    
    
      2 Marshall, 551; Harrison vs. Wilson.
    
    7 B. Mon., 266; Warner vs. Everett.
    
    
      Littell's Select Cases, 29; Buckner vs. Terrill.
    
    2 Bibb, 198; Wttgnon vs. McCoy.
    
    
      Bac. Ab., title Statutes, i6; lb., 10; 6 lb., 388.
    
      Pr. Dec., 306; Nichols vs. Wells.
    
    4 Littell, 378 ; Mason vs. Rogers-.
    
    1 Bibb, 216; Hardin vs. Oioings.
    
    10 John., 579 ; Barry vs. Mandel.
    
    
      11 Mad., 149; Arthur vs. Bohenham.
    
    7 John., 495-6.
    
      Blackwell on Tax Titles.
    
    
      Co. Litt., 360a.
    
      Act of 1797, sec. 30, 1 M. $ B., 662.
    
      Act of 1811, sec. 2, M. Sp B., 673.
    
      Rev. Stat., chap. 37, art. 2, sec. 4.
    2 Tidd., 920.
    3 Mon., 336; Knight vs. Applegate's heirs.
    
    
      Act of January 19, 1866, Scss. Acts, 1865-6, p. 10.
   JUDGE ROBERTSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The opinion hitherto pronounced on the same record, on the appeal as between Holeman's ex'or vs. Holeman's heirs, rules this case dependent on the same facts and principles; and still satisfied with that judgment, we will only add, in support of its principle, the following-reason, peculiarly applicable to land.

While the levy on movable property puts the thing in the officer’s possession, either actually or constructively, and, consequently, invests him with a special property, a levy on land gives him no such possession, and, consequently, no such title. The death of the owner of the land after the levy, and before a sale, passes the whole title to his heirs, and, without a revivor against them, there is no title subject to sale by the levying officer, who could not, if he sell, pass any title to the purchaser. Such a sale, therefore, must be void.

The judgment recognizing the validity of the' sale as between the parties to this appeal is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, as indicated in the opinion just referred to, between other parties in the same case.

Note by Reporter. — See case of Holeman’s ex’r vs. Holeman’s heirs, post.  