
    Herbemont vs. Sharp.
    There is no implied warranty at Sheriff’s sales.
    In no case can a sale of lands be regarded as complete until the purchaser has paid liis money and the seller conveyed the land.
    A purchaser at Sheriff’s sale, who” has not received titles, may show that the title is not in the defendant, and that lie represented to the sheriff that the land was his and induced him to sell it as such.
    IN this case a ft. fa. had been lodged with, the sheriff who levied upon a tract of land by directions from the defendant.
    The land was put up and bid off b3r the plaintiff; immediately after, he discovered that the land did not belong to the defendant, he so informed the sheriff and refused to receive titles.
    At the succeeding court, a rule was taken out by the defendant, and served upon the plaintiff to shew cause why 
      Satisfaction should not be entered upon the judgment.
    The plaintiff shewed for cause,
    1st. That the title of t]ie defendant was defective, and ' that he, (the plaintiff,) had not received titles for the same.
    2nd. That the defendant knowing that the land did not belong to him, had fraudulently directed the sheriff to sell the same.
    The rule was made absolute.
    A motion was now made to reverse the order of the Circuit Court.
   ’Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court:

Had the plaintiff received a conveyance from the sheriff, he would have been bound, and this court could have afforded him no relief. For although the civil law rule of implied warranties has been adopted in this state, it was decided in the case of Davis & Murray, (2 Con. Rep. 143, and 2 Bay, 167,) that sheriff’s sales form an exception to the general rule, and are coupled with no implied warranty. A sheriff’s sale is now governed by the same rules as other sales of real property were anterior to the adoption of the civil law rule.

In the case of Johnson £? Johnson, (3 Bos. fy Pol. 3 68,,) the chief justice observes, “the flaw having been discovered before the purchase was completed, there is no pretence the plaintiff bought the estate, .and that having obtained the title for which he contracted, he must abide by the consequences. In no case can a sale of lauds be regarded as completed, until the purchaser has paid his money, and the seller conveyed the land. The plaintiff in this cose having received no conveyance, he was not bound, or was at liberty to shew that the title was not in the defendant, or that he was g'uilty of the fraud charged by the plaintiff.

In no case ought satisfaction to be ordered by the court, where the evidence of payment is not indisputable. In this case, if the allegations sworn to by the plaintiff can be Substantiated, there was no payment. There was quite enough, at least, to excite great doubts in the mind of the-court.

McCord, for the motion.

Gregg, contra.

The order of the Circuit Court must therefore be reversed.

The motion is granted.

Justices Richardson, Johnson, Gcmtt, ColcocJe and Nott, concurred.  