¶1 (after stating the case). This case cannot be likened to a sale of the interest of one-tenant in common under execution, as in Ward v. Farmer, 92 N. C., 93, or to any one of the numerous cases of a sale of one tenant in common, whether purporting to sell his own interest only, or the entire interest in the land, cited by the counsel for the plaintiffs.
¶2 It is insisted for the plaintiffs that, as in fact no process was served on them, the sale, as to them, was absolutely void, and the effect of the deed was to constitute the defendant a joint tenant with them, and could not confer a title adverse to them. We are relieved, by the facts in this case, of the necessity of considering this question.
¶3 The defendant does not claim under a deed from any one or more of the heirs or devisees of Alfred McCulloh, or under a deed purporting to sell the interest of one or more of the heirs, but he claims against all of them, and not under any of them, under a deed from J. M. Johnson, made under a decree of the Superior Court of Davie County, in certain judicial proceedings to sell land of the testator to make assets; and an adverse possession under such a deed for seven *532 years would confer a perfect title against all persons who were laboring under no disability, and this even if the deed had been made by a stranger, and without any pretence of judicial or other sanction. The defendant having held the land, under the deed referred to, exclusively and adversely to the plaintiffs for more than seven years from November 6, 1869, to the bringing of this action, September 17, 1877, there was no error in the ruling of his Iionor.
¶4 No error. Affirmed.