
    *Robert Barkley v. John Screven.
    To make out a title to land under Sheriff’s sale, it is not necessary to produce the intermediate executions ; it is enough to produce the judgment and execution under which the sale was made.
    In personal property, production of the execution under which the sale was made is alone sufficient, 
    
    The pur-chaser is not required to look into the regularity of the proceedings ;  nor can third persons make objection to irregularity of proceedings.
    
    This was an action of trespass, to try title to a tract of land in Beaufort district.
    In establishing- his claim, the plaintiff offered in evidence an exemplification of a judgment, and a pluriesfi. fa. in the same case, under which the land in question was sold at sheriff’s sale, in order to introduce, as a link in his chain of title, the sheriff’s deed of conveyance. This was objected to by the defendant’s counsel, on the ground that the plaintiff should produce the intermediate executions. The Court sustained the objection, and rejected the testimony ; in consequence of which, a nonsuit was ordered.
    This was a motion to set aside the nonsuit, on the ground that.the execution was improperly rejected.
    The case was tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Ooosawhatchie, in November Term, 1817.
    
      Martin, and Simons, for the motion ; Grimke, contra.
    
      
      
        Vide Hopkins v. De Graffenreid, 2 Bay, 441. R. 2 N. & McC. 418, 299.
    
    
      
       See Ante, 12, Turner v. M’Crea; 2 Bac. Abr. 741, tit. Execution, (Q.) Jenk. Cent. Casus, 61, p. 264; Moore, 573, pl. 788; Dr. Drury’s Case, 8 Co. 143. Goodyere v. Ince, Cro. Jac. 246; Burnley v. Lambert, 1 Wash. Rep. 311.
    
    
      
      
        Renolds v. Corp, 3 Caine’s Rep. 273. R.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Cheyes, J.

It has been long the established practice of this Court, not to require the adduction of the intermediate executions. In cases of personal estate, the execution under which the sale is made, is enough. In cases of real estate, the judgment must be superadded. The purchaser is not required to look into the regularity of the proceedings. The seal of the Court is evidence enough for him. Nor can objections of this nature be made by third persons, if the proceedings were clearly irregular. Jackson v. Bartlet, (8 John. Rep. 361.)

am therefore °f opinion the nonsuit should be set aside.

All the judges concurred. 
      
       1 Bail. 514; 2 Strob. 220; Harp. 451.
     
      
       6 Rich. 492.
     