Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ala. 429

Doe ex dem. Stevens v. King

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1852

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1852-06-15

Tried before the Hon. Bobert Dougherty. Ejectment by Stevens against King. It appears from the bill of exceptions, that the plaintiff relied on a deed from the sheriff, the land having been sold under execution against Thomas Jennings, Jr., on a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court in 1832, and purchased by plaintiff.

Relies on King v. Stevens

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1889

3 state decisions

101852186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

¶1— The plaintiff in error, claiming under execution sale, takes only the title which the defendant in the execution had; and although his possession may have amounted to a legal title, so as to be the subject of levy and sale, yet it is obvious, that, if a superior legal title was outstanding in another, the defendant in error, who is a stranger to the execution, may defend under it. Thomas Jennings, Jr., the defendant in the execution, held under the will of his father, and the only title of the father was the bond of Youngblood. By the approved contract, the full legal title was vested in Caswell and Nuchols, Jones & Parsons v. Inge & Mardis, 5 Porter, 327; Roper v. Bradford, 9 ib. 354; and whether it remained in them, or passed to the heirs of Caswell, and Lanier and Kelly, or was transferred so as to vest in Youngblood or Howard, is immaterial, as, in either event, the outstanding legal title would be superior to *433that under which the plaintiff claims, and thus prevent him from recovering. King v. Stephens, 18 Ala. 475.

¶2It follows, that there is no error in the charge, and the judgment is affirmed.

/21/ala/429 · .json · Public domain