{
  "id": 11276534,
  "name": "Mary Sanders adm'x of John Sanders v. David W. Sanders ex'r of Isaac Sanders",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sanders v. Sanders",
  "decision_date": "1829-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. 193"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. 193"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2248,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.363,
    "sha256": "5f15aa70f1b8483732e5f6472ba0a455837e6654965c839e394c015eb8fcdb29",
    "simhash": "1:7902aab2842a7445",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:37.349944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Sanders adm\u2019x of John Sanders v. David W. Sanders ex\u2019r of Isaac Sanders."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hall, Judge.\nI think the act of 1807, (Rev. ch. 723) cannot support an action against Isaac Sanders in his own person, nor against his executor after his death $ because the money paid for the land by John Sunders, was paid for the benefit of the estate of Frede\u00f1ck Wood, and not for that of Isaac Sanders. If any person is liable, it ought to be the representative of Wood\u2019s estate.\nI therefore think the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Let the judgment below be affirmed-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hall, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gaston, for tins Plaintiff.",
      "No Counsel appeared for the Defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Sanders adm\u2019x of John Sanders v. David W. Sanders ex\u2019r of Isaac Sanders.\nFrom Onslow.\nUnder the act of 180/, (Rev. ch. 723) where the land of a testator was sold under a judgment against the executor as executor, and the purchaser was evicted by the heir, he cannot recover his purchase money \u00edrom the executor against whom the judgment was rendered. \u2022\nThis was a special action on the case, founded upon the act of 1007, {Rev. ch. 723) entitled \u201can act for relief of purchasers at execution sales, in certain cases,\u201d which provides that where any property shall be sold under any execution, &c, and the sale be legally and bona fide made, if the property so sold be not the proper goods and chattels, lands or tenements of the Defendant in the execution, by reason whereof the purchaser at such sale may he deprived of the same, it shall be lawful for such purchaser, his executors, &c. to sue the Defendant in the execution or his legal representatives, in an action on the case.\nUpon the trial before his honor Judge Martin-, on the last Fail Circuit, it appeared upon the opening of the case, that one Foscue had recovered several judg-men is against Defendant\u2019s testator as the executor of one pre(ieric]t Wood \u2014 that upon these judgments execution issued against the goods and chattels of Wood in the hands of his executor, which were satisfied by a sale of Wood\u2019s land \u2014 that John Sanders the Plaintiff\u2019s intestate had, at the Sheriff\u2019s sale, purchased those lands, and was evicted therefrom by the heirs of Wood.\nJune, 1829.\nUpon these facts, the presiding Judge being of opinion for the Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered a nonsuit, and appealed to this Court.\nGaston, for tins Plaintiff.\nNo Counsel appeared for the Defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 210
}