Majority
p. 297The People, on the relation of S. Sutliff, vs. C. Easton, sheriff of Montgomery.
Headnote
A person obmentS against land of Mk ing himself the purchaser at an amount exceeding the judgment, has no right to redeem the premises purchased by him from the operation of a sale anterior to that under which he purchased; the sale of the land under his execution having extinguished the lien of his judgment; he is no longer a judgment creditor having a lien.Motion for a mandamus. Certain real estate of T. E. Sutliff was sold on the 15th August, 1827, under an executian issued under the seal of the common pleas of Montgomery, on a justice’s judgment, for $37,81, and puschased by
p. 298
J. W. Cady and another, who obtained a certificate of sale, which, by assignment, came to the relator in this case. In December, 1827, S. Wiley recovered a judgment against T. g Sutliff for $803 58, issued an execution, and on the 20th February, 1828, sold the same premises, became himself the purchaser at the sum of $318 50, (a sum exceeding the amount of his judgment and the sheriff’s fees,) and-obtained the sheriff’s certificate. On the 14th November, 1828, Wiley paid to the sheriff $65, claiming the right to redeem the premises from the operation of the sale of August, 1827.
JD. Cady, for relator.
The relator is entitled to his deed. Wiley’s judgment, by the sale under his execution at a sum beyond the amount thereof, became satisfied, pun he was no longer a judgment creditor, having a Men upon the land sold at the previous sale, under which the relator claims. Had the premises been purchased by a stranger instead of the plaintiff in the execution, such would have been the effect, and whether he or another became the purchaser, cannot alter the rights of the relator. A sale of land under an execution, extinguishes the lien of the judgment on the land sold. (8 John’s R. 334. See also 4 Cowen, 417, and 7 Cowen, 21.) Let a mandamus issue.