Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Gentry v. . Callahan

98 N.C. 448

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1887-09-05
Topic
general

MekrimoN, J., (after stating the case). At the time the sheriff named sold the land in question to Hampton, Pell, the defendant in the execution, had no title thereto — so far as appears, he had a mere naked possession, and the deed of the sheriff only passed such interests in the land to the purchaser as Pell then had. It is well settled, that a sheriff’s deed operates to pass only such interest as the defendant in the execution under which the land is sold, had, at the time of the sale thereof. Title acquired by him afterwards does not pass by the deed, nor is he estopped to assert his title subsequently acquired. Flynn v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gentry v. . Callahan. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
MekrimoN, J.,

(after stating the case). At the time the sheriff named sold the land in question to Hampton, Pell, the defendant in the execution, had no title thereto — so far as appears, he had a mere naked possession, and the deed of the sheriff only passed such interests in the land to the purchaser as Pell then had. It is well settled, that a sheriff’s deed operates to pass only such interest as the defendant in the execution under which the land is sold, had, at the time of the sale thereof. Title acquired by him afterwards does not pass by the deed, nor is he estopped to assert his title subsequently acquired. Flynn v. Williams, 1 Ire., 509; Badham v. Cox, 11 Ire., 456; Frey v. Ransom, 66 N. C., 466; Dail v. Freeman, 92 N. C., 351.

*450 The execution debtor, Pell, obtained a grant from the State after the sale, and before the deed of the sheriff was in fact executed ; but this could not help the purchaser, because his deed had operative effect only as of the date of the sale. The fieri facias and levy of the same only related to the sale recited in the’ deed, and there is not the slightest evidence going to show that it was used for any purpose thereafter other than to return it to the office of the clerk of the Court according to law. Badham v. Cox, supra. Judgment affirmed.