¶1I concur in the opinion that this motion ought to be granted. It does not strike me however, that the witness, the sheriff, stands precisely in the situation of one having an equal interest on both sides. The mere act of selling the land at public sale, and making a deed, would not give the defendant cause of action against him, and I know of no other ground of complaint which he has against him. But if the sheriff had before received the amount of the execution, he is unquestionably liable to refund the amount paid by the plaintiff. The question propounded, was calculated to elicit an answer which would charge him with that liability ; he stands therefore in the situation of one called to swear against his interest, and on that ground, his answer ought to have been received.
19 S.C.L. 415
Hunter v. Stevenson
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided December 15, 1833
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1833-12-15
Tried before Mr. Justice Martin, at Darlington- Trespass to try titles. The plaintiff claimed<| under ■a deed from the sheriff. Several judgmonts had been obtained against the defendant, and executions lodged, which the sheriff levied on the land in dispute, alia at ms sale, it was purchased by the plamtiii. The sheriff’s deed recites the execution of James son and others, against the defendant.
Decided 1833-12-15