
    BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. WHITE.
    Sale on mortgage — execution on sci. fa. — objections to confirmation of sale — privies entitled to bring error — motion hot favored.
    In ajudgment on a scire facias on a mortgage, to sell the premises, the execution, nominally a levari facias, is in effect only an order to sell.
    Objections to an order confirming a sale on execution should be made to the court making the order.
    A purchaser at the sheriff’s sale is not privy to the record, and entitled to prosecute a writ of error, to reverse the order confirming the sale.
    A purchaser at sheriff’s sale will hardly be received on a writ of error, to object his own inability to purchase, as a reason for setting aside the sale, and open the .door to recover the purchase money back.
    Certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas, to reverse an order of that court confirming a sale on execution. The record shows that a judgment was recovered on a scire facias upon a mortgage, against White in favor of Hutchinson, upon which a levari facias issued, and the mortgaged land was sold to the Bank of the United States for $8,903 02. The sale was examined in the court, and a deed ordered without objection. The bank now brings this certiorari to set aside the sale and order of confirmation. The execution, appraisement, &c. are sent up with the other proceedings.
    
      Fox, for the bank,
    took several exceptions to the regularity of the proceedings after judgment, and insisted that the bank had no power to purchase or hold land.
    
      Strait, contra,
    cited 3 O. R. 190, 1; 4 O. R. 25; 4 Wheat. JR. 503.
   By the Court.

No levy was necessary. The law required a levari facias on such judgment in name; in effect, it was but an order to sell the mortgaged premises. All these objections to the proceedings of the judgment were, however, with the Court of Common Pleas, and should have been objected against the order of confirmation, when it was before them. It does not appear that this was done.

The objection set up by the bank to reverse these proceedings and set aside a sale to herself, because of her own inability to purchase, does not commend itself to favor for its modesty. The bank was a stranger to the record, and stepped forward to bid as another purchaser, and bought in the property at $35 per acre, which was appraised at $6, acquiesced in the confirmation of the sale, and now asks this Court to exonerate her from her purchase, because she transcended her power in purchasing. We should hardly be disposed to do so in a proper case, certainly not without we were compelled by law.

But what right has the bank of the United States to bring certiorari? Is she party or privy to the judgment? The plaintiff is not dead. If the bank, in this instance, is to be regarded as privy and entitled to bring error on the judgment, so may every purchaser of a chattel or piece of land on execution, who finds he has a bad title, hunt up errors in the judgment, though the parties to it are satisfied, and sue out a writ of error, nominally to reverse the judgment, but really to set aside the sale and open the door to recover back the money paid on the purchase.

This writ has issued unadvisedly, and must be dismissed at the plaintiff’s costs.  