
    Nichols vs. Whelchel et al.
    
    1. The record in this case is unsatisfactory; the testimony fails to show all the facts necessary to a proper adjudication of the rights of the parties, but it shows enough to require a new trial.
    (a.) The judgments under which a sale was made, by virtue of which claimant claims in this case, were rendered in cases commenced to enforce a mechanic’s lien, but in what manner 'does not appear; nor is it apparent how a general judgment was obtained in a case begun by a .seizure under a fi. fa. issued on a mechanic’s lien.
    2. Where a judgment rendered in 1876 was in 1879 levied on certain land, to which a claim was interposed by one claiming title under a sheriff’s deed made in 1874, the plaintiff in the last judgment attacking the former sale as void, it was error calculated to mislead the jury for the court to charge that, if the claimant had been in possession of the land levied on for four years and was a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice of the plaintiff’s judgment, the land would not be subject. The claimant, having bought two years before the date of the judgment, could not have had notice, and the jury may have been misled.
    Judgment reversed.
    March 13, 1883.
   Crawford, Justice.  