
    Mary Sanders adm’x of John Sanders v. David W. Sanders ex’r of Isaac Sanders.
    From Onslow.
    Under the act of 180/, (Rev. ch. 723) where the land of a testator was sold under a judgment against the executor as executor, and the purchaser was evicted by the heir, he cannot recover his purchase money írom the executor against whom the judgment was rendered. •
    This was a special action on the case, founded upon the act of 1007, {Rev. ch. 723) entitled “an act for relief of purchasers at execution sales, in certain cases,” which provides that where any property shall be sold under any execution, &c, and the sale be legally and bona fide made, if the property so sold be not the proper goods and chattels, lands or tenements of the Defendant in the execution, by reason whereof the purchaser at such sale may he deprived of the same, it shall be lawful for such purchaser, his executors, &c. to sue the Defendant in the execution or his legal representatives, in an action on the case.
    Upon the trial before his honor Judge Martin-, on the last Fail Circuit, it appeared upon the opening of the case, that one Foscue had recovered several judg-men is against Defendant’s testator as the executor of one pre(ieric]t Wood — that upon these judgments execution issued against the goods and chattels of Wood in the hands of his executor, which were satisfied by a sale of Wood’s land — that John Sanders the Plaintiff’s intestate had, at the Sheriff’s sale, purchased those lands, and was evicted therefrom by the heirs of Wood.
    
    June, 1829.
    Upon these facts, the presiding Judge being of opinion for the Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered a nonsuit, and appealed to this Court.
    Gaston, for tins Plaintiff.
    No Counsel appeared for the Defendant.
   Hall, Judge.

I think the act of 1807, (Rev. ch. 723) cannot support an action against Isaac Sanders in his own person, nor against his executor after his death $ because the money paid for the land by John Sunders, was paid for the benefit of the estate of Fredeñck Wood, and not for that of Isaac Sanders. If any person is liable, it ought to be the representative of Wood’s estate.

I therefore think the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.

Per Curiam. — Let the judgment below be affirmed-  