
    CRAIG’S LESSEE vs. VANCE.
    A misrecital of the judgment by virtue of which land is sold does not affect the validity of the sheriff’s conveyance.
    
      Ejectment. A sheriffs deed was produced, which recited a judgment obtained the 21st or August, 1798, the record produced, shews a judgment recovered February term, 1799, in Sullivan county court. The record was certified thus; “a copy A. B.clerk,” &c.
    Miller, objected to the reading this record and deed. First, the certificate of the clerk is not sufficient. He should state that as clerk, he certifies the record of a certain suit. From the deed it evidently appears that there was no judgment to warrant the execution under which the sheriff sold, and the plaintiff bought. There was a judgment between the same parties in February, 1799, but this is not the judgment which is recited in the deed.
    Whiteside argued e contra.
   Overton, J.

alone. I am strongly inclined to think, that it is not necessary to refer to the judgment in the deed at all. I am of opinion it is surplusage and that if it can be clearly shewn, that the sheriff sold under the judgment produced, it is sufficient. The caption of the record produced shews that it is a record of Sullivan county. It begins as usual “pleas before” &c. The record is sufficiently certified. It was also objected, that the execution was not set out verbatim, nor shewn to have been returned, but only that “an alias issued” &c. By the court. Where a ministerial officer is sued by a stranger, for an act which is official, he must shew his authority, and that the original was returned, but the same strictnes is not necessary, when his official acts are called into view in shewing title by strangers, who are purchasers. 
      
       See 1. Dall. 63 93.
     
      
      See 1. John. ca.153 288. Tay. Rep. 12.
     
      
      Hardin's Rep. 293 n.
     
      
       See. 2. Johns 46.-1 Goulds.ed Esp. N. P. part. 2. 300 312.
     