
    No. 2546.
    Farrington v. Duval.
    November Term, 1889.
    This was an action to recover a tract of land, and the defence was that while the sheriff had made a deed of this land to plaintiff, the purchase money had been all paid by defendant. Held—
    1. That the finding of the jury under the issues submitted to them that defendant had paid the sheriff for the land in dispute having been approved by the Circuit Judge, and sustained by direct and positive testimony and by corroborating circumstances, ■ it follows as matter of law7 that there is a resulting trust in favor of defendant.
    2. Defendant having paid her bid to the sheriff, it could not affect her rights if he misappropriated the money. And as there is no evidence of any such misappropriation, the presumption is that he did his duty by properly applying it.
    3. The “Case” does not show that two former verdicts in favor of defendant had been successively set aside by two Circuit Judges, and therefore this matter is not before the court; but if it had been so, it would then appear that three separate juries had found for defendant-
    judgment (Fraser, J.) affirmed.
    February 26, 1890.
    
      H. W. Harris and McDonald Douglass, for appellant.
    
      Ragsdale $ Ragsdale, contra.
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice McIver,  