
    Yates, Adm’r. of Philips, vs. John P. Bond.
    There is no implied warranty at Sheriff’s sales. The rule of Cavecit JSrmptor applies.
    Assumpsit. — Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at-Lexington, October Term, 1822.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand.
    All the facts of the case were admitted, which will appear from the following statement: It appeared that the tract of land for which the note was given, was once the subject of dispute in the Court of Common Pleas, between George Patterson, the plaintiff’s intestate, and the defendant, and that Patterson had recovered a verdict for it. — - It further appeared, that the land was levied on by the sheriff under an execution, and for the purpose of making an advantageous sale, it was sold on twelve months credit by the direction of an agent, Mr. Stark, and the defendant bid it off, and gave his note for the purchase money. Upon a re-survey of the land, after the purchase, the defendant found a considerable part of it was held in possession, and claimed by another person ; of this he was prepared to give evidence on the trial ; but his honor who tried the case entertained some doubts as to the propriety of the evidence, and finally overruled it. The defendant now moved the court for a new trial, on the ground, that a recovery by the plaintiff’s intestate of the land in question ought not to have precluded the defendant from giving in evidence, by way of discount, the claim of third persons to the same land.
   Mr. Justice ColcocJe

delivered the opinion of the court:

It has been long settled that a purchaser at sheriff’s sale has no warranty. The right of the defendant is sold, and if it should turn out that he has no right, or if the property be defective, the purchaser must sustain the loss. The maxim of eaveut emptor applies. (2 Bay, 169-70. 8 Const. Rep. 143, and the case oí Herbemont vs. Sharp, Ante, 264.)

Butler, for the motion.

Sta?'k, contra.

In addition to the doctrine of law, the defendant had litigated the very title under which he purchased, and may fairly be presumed to have had a knowledge of every claim to the land.

The motion is dismissed.

Justices Johnson, Huger, Nott and Richardson, concurred.  