
    Ainsley Hall, et al. vs. Adam Carruth.
    Where the plaintiff had bought a tract of land at Sheriff’s sale, but no title was executed by the Sheriff, and afterwards, filed his bill in Chancery against the successor of the Sheriff, to have a title executed, which, in pursuance of the decree of that court, was executed to the plaintiff, the Court Held that such title was admissable in anac* iion to try titles between the plaintiff %nd a third person, and that they would not look into the proceedings of the cdftt of equity to ascertain in what manner they acted, it was enough that they had power to act and had acted, and their decree was as binding as a judgment of this court. 
    
    JL HIS action was brought to try the title to a tract of land in Greenville district. The land in dispute, had been gold by Samuel Saxon, the sheriff of the former district of Ninety-six, as the property of John Goodwyn, and was purchased lay Jesse Goodwyn, who died immediately afterwards. Part of the purchase money was paid by Jesse Goodwyn, and the balance by John Hopkins, hio administrator, but no title was executed by the sheriff.
    To enable the plaintiffs to try their title to this land, at law, the court of equity ordered the sheriff of Grecnvillr-' district, (which in that part of tht- former district of Ninety-six, in which the land in question was located,) to make titles to the plaintiff;;, who were heirs at law to Ji\v:c Good xvijn. A deed was accordingly executed and produced at the trial of this case ; hut was rejected by the circuit court, in consequence of which the plaintiffs were non-suited.
    A motion was now submitted to reverse the order of the circuit court.
    
      
      
         See Post, tlie cese of Huffman vs. Kongler, and Hopkins vs. Lee 6, Wheat. 109. R.
    
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the; court.

It,is unnecessary to enquire if the sheriff of Greenville district was the successor of Saxon, the sheriff of the former district of Ninety-six, or whether he was authorized, under the act of the legislature, to make titles to the plaintiffs. He acted in obedience to the order of the court of equity, as appears from the deed he executed. The only question then, for the consideration of this coutt, is as to the validity of that order.

There can be no doubt that the plaintiffs were entitled to the-deed. The land had been purchased and paid for by their ancestor. They could not however proceed at lav/, against the defendant, without lido necessary link hr the chain oftitlc. Whosshould execute the deed,' was a-question of dcSibt. To effect their object, they produced from a court of competent jurisdiction, an order for the sheriff of Greenville district, to make titles. We will not look into the proceedings of the court of equity to ascer - tain in what manner they acted j it is enough that they had power to act and. have acted. Their decree is as binding as a judgment of this court. The deed executed by the sheriff of Greenville district, was therefore competent evidence, and ought ¡to have been received.

Were'it necessary to enquire into the object cf the court of equity in ordering titles to be made, it would appear, I' think abundantly evident, that it was only to enable the plaintiffs to sustain their action of trespass to try titles at law. If however they had an ulterior object in view, that •¿anuo;; be •:;< featcd by git ing effect to that part of their crckr which required the aid oi this court. Alter verdict had, they can and I presume will proceed for the consummation of their purpose.

Davis, for the motion.

McDuffie, contra.

The order for a nonsuit must therefore be reversed.

Justices joknson, Cclcock and Dott, concurred.  