
    HARRISON COUNTY,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1833.
    JUDGES-WRIGHT AND WOOD.
    THOMPSON’S LESSEE v. LEINARD.
    Sheriff's deed prima facie evidence of the regularity of the proceedings — purchaser looks to the judgment, levy, sale and deed — irregularity in the other proceedings do not affect his title.
    The act of 4th February, 1824, expressly provides that the sheriff’s deed shall be prima facie evidence of the legality of the sale and of the proceedings, and vest in the purchaser as good a title as the judgment debtor had.
    A purchaser at sheriff’s sale relies upon the judgment, levy, sale and deed: all other questions as to the regularity of the proceedings are between the parties to the suit and the officer.
    Ejectment. The defendant claims title under a sheriff’s deed and sale upon execution. The deed is regular, and it is admitted that the whole proceedings are regular except that of the appraisement by the sheriff. If this does not invest the defendant with a legal title, it is agreed the plaintiff shall have judgment.
    
      Cowen, for the plaintiff,
    insisted there could be no valid sale on execution without an appraisement — and that as there was a defective appraisement, the deed was not conclusive upon that point, being made only prima facie evidence of title. He cited 20 O. L. 72; 3 O. 489.
    
      Beebe contra.
   WRIGHT, J.

The question before us izzvolves the inquiry whether after sale of land on execution, a confirmation by the court, and deed to a stranger to the record, it is competent to inquire into the 459] "‘legality of the ajzpz-aisement, in order to invalidate the sale. The statute of February, 1824, 22 O. L. 111, 12, expressly provides that the deed shall bo, prima facie evidence of the legality of the sale and of the proceedings, and vest the puz-chaser with as good a title as the judgment debtor had, &c. In this case there has been a judgment, levy, appz-aisement, sale, order of confizunation, and deed; but a defect in the appraisement has been discovered, which escaped the notice of counsel before, and the court in confirming the sale. This court has decided heretofore, .that the purchaser at sheriff’s sale relies upon the judgment, the levy, sale, and deed; and that all other questions as to the regularity of the proceedings, are between the parties to the judgment and the officer; 3 O. 191; 4 Wheat. 503; 16 John. 537; 3 Bibb, 217. Those matters are not mow open for examination between the judgment debtor and a purchaser who is not a party to the judgment.

Judgment for the defendant.  