
    Thomas v. Connell
    A purchaser at sheriff's sale having no right to the possession or profits of the land until the acknowledgment (and delivery) of the deed, he is therefore not personally liable for ground-rent accruing between the day of the sale and the date of his deed.
    In error from the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia.
    
      Feb. 24. In an action of covenant a ease was stated in the nature of a special verdict. On the 5th of June, 1832, Webb conveyed a lot of ground to West, subject to a yearly rent of $80, payable semi-annually on the 1st of June and December. Webb subsequently conveyed the rent to the plaintiff. On the 20th Jan. 1840, Connell purchased, at sheriff’s sale, West’s estate in the lot. The deed was acknowledged and dated on the 16th Oct. 1841. If the purchaser was liable for the rent accruing between the date of his purchase and the date of the deed, then judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff. Judgment having been given for the defendant, plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
    
      H. C. Townsend, for plaintiff in error.
    The purchaser obtains an equitable estate from the date of his purchase, which is the subject of lien, Carkhuff v. Anderson, 3 Binn. 4; Scott v. Greenough, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 197; Stoever v. Rice, 3 Whart. 21; Morrison v. Wurtz, 7 Watts, 437. [Gibson, C. J. There he took possession.] Here he took a deed which drew possession, as the lot was, in fact, vacant. That an equitable owner is liable by reason of privity of estate, is settled, Berry v. McMullen, 17 Serg. & Rawle, 84. The point appears to be decided in terms in Walton v. West, 4 Whart. 221, where it is said the timo of the sale is that at which all liens are to be estimated as charges on the purchase-money; those accruing thereafter are on the purchaser.
    
      April 3.
    
      Meredith, contra.
    Walton v. West is misunderstood. It is the estate of the purchaser which is liable, and so much only was there decided. In these cases there are always two persons liable, the original grantee on his personal covenant, and the subsequent alienee, by virtue of his estate. Until he acquires the estate and the right to take the profits, which is the real test, it is impossible to hold him liable. That he cannot take the profits before the acknowledgment of the deed, is settled, Scheerer v. Stanley, 2 Rawle, 276; Bank v. Wise, 3 Watts, 394; Braddee v. Wiley, 10 Watts, 362 ; 9 Watts, 436.
    
      E. K. Price, in reply.
    It is clear policy to hold the defendant liable, to prevent the system of speculation at sheriff’s sales at the expense of the owners of the rent; but the legal test is the cessation of the estate of the defendant in the execution, and the commencement of that of the purchaser, which is the day of sale. The delivery of the deed is but a perfection or completion of that inceptive title,- and relates back.
   Rogers, J.

Judgment affirmed.

Coulter, J., was at Nisi Prius until March 2.  