Rushing v. Lockard
Rushing v. Lockard
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
To state this case is to decide it; for, when divested of all •extraneous matter, there can be no dispute about it.
The judgment in Bryant v. Rushing may be laid out of view, with the copy of the judgment-roll showing the enrolment of the judgment in favor of Moffat and the appeal from the decree in chancery. The case is this : —
Moffat had a judgment rendered on the 27th of February, 1877, against Charles E. Rushing, upon which execution was issued June 20, 1878, which was levied on the land sued for in this action. The land was sold by virtue of the execution on the 5th of August, 1878, and was purchased by and conveyed to Fewell, who conveyed it to the plaintiff in the action of ■ejectment. The execution commanded the sheriff to make the money (a sum corresponding with the amount of the judgment), “ with interest on said sum, at eight per cent per annum, from the twenty-sixth day of February, 1877, until paid.” It was shown that Moffat had no other judgment •except that in evidence, and that the execution was issued on ■-that. Charles E. Rushing had, on the 31st of July, 1875,
. This decree is conclusive that the conveyance of July 31, 1875, was void as to the judgment of Moffat, and, therefore, that the land it embraced was rightly subjected to said-judgment. The defendant in the action claimed the land sued for by virtue of that conveyance, and it being held nugatory-as to the judgment of Moffat, the purchaser under that judgment acquired the better title.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- H. P. Rushing v. E. Lockard
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Ejectment. Purchaser at execution sale. Proof of title. Case in judgment. M. recovered a judgment on the 27th of February, 1877, against C. R., and on the same day B. recovered a judgment against the same defendant. Upon these judgments executions were issued, and levied on a certain tract of land, which was sold thereunder on the 5th of August, 1878, and bought by F., who conveyed his title to L. O. R. had, on the 31st of July, 1875, conveyed this land by deed to H. R.; but on the 15th of June, 1878, M. obtained a decree in chancery against H. R. and O. R., annulling that conveyance as fraudulent and void as to his judgment. An appeal, with supersedeas, was taken from this decree, on the 5th of August, 1878, to this court, which was dismissed on the 10th of May, 1879. In July, 1880, L. instituted an action of ejectment against H. R. to recover the land. In this action formal proof was made of the judgments, the executions, the sheriff’s deed to F., and the latter’s deed to L., and also of the chancery proceeding annulling the conveyance to H. R. A copy of the judgment-roll was also adduced in evidence, which recited a - judgment in favor of M. & Co. against O. R., rendered on the 26th of February, 1877. The execution on the M. judgment was for a certain sum of money, the same as the amount of .t.he judgment obtained by M. on the 27th of February, 1877, “with interest on said Sum from the 26th of February, .1877.” The sheriff’s deed also referred to the date of the M. judgment as the 26th of February, 1877. But it was proven that M. had no judgment against O. R. except that rendered on the 27th of February, 1877, and that the execution was issued upon it. The defendant, H. R., demurred to the evidence, and the demurrer was overruled. Held, that the judgment of B., the judgment-roll containing the enrolment of M.’s judgment, and the appeal from the decree in chancery may be left out of view, and still the demurrer was properly overruled.