Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Miss. 147

Enloe v. Miles

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1849

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1849-01-15

Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor. On the 30th of April, 1844, James R. Enloe filed his bill, in which he alleges, that in January, 1838, Charles L. McGehe obtained a judgment in the Holmes circuit court against him for $1738-63, which was bonded with James Hurst as his surety; that Hurst agreed, for a consideration paid him by Enloe, to pay this judgment, and had ample property in Holmes county for its payment; Hurst, however, failed to pay it, and an execution in the year…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1911

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Ti-iacheR

¶1delivered the opinion of tile court.

¶2The object of this bill in the vice-chancery court at Carrollton, is to set aside a sheriff’s sale, and vacate his deed to certain lands

¶3*153It is charged, that the sheriff of Holmes county sold the lands by virtue of an execution, during the term time of the circuit court of that county, but after having postponed the sale from day to day. It is also insisted that Miles, the purchaser, was apprized of this circumstance, having been a bidder at one of the postponed sales.

¶4Thg sheriff of Holmes county has, by law, until the middle of each term of the circuit court, to sell any property under execution, but he is not authorized to continue sales from day to day during that time. H. & H. 656, sec. 87; Acts, 1840, ch. 139, sec. 1.

¶5The record shows the facts of the case to be as above stated, and they constitute, in our estimation, the sale illegal, and Miles chargeable with notice of the irregularity of the sheriff in executing the process of execution. He, therefore, cannot be protected in his title. The case falls within the exception made in The President, &c. of Natchez v. Minor, 10 S. & M. 246.

¶6And the complainant charges also, that he tendered to the defendants the amount of purchase money paid by them for the lands, and at the hearing in this court adhered to his willingness to do this equity. We therefore adjudge the decree of the vice-chancellor to be reversed, and a decree entered in this court, setting aside the sheriff’s sale, and vacating his deed upon complainant paying to the defendants the amount of money paid by them in consequence of the purchase, with the interest accrued thereon, and legitimate charges.

Mr. Chief Justice Shakkey, not having heard the argument, gave no opinion.
/20/miss/147 · .json · Public domain