{ "id": 2092632, "name": "B. M. ISLER vs. L. J. MOORE, D. B. EVERITT, H. B. HORN and others", "name_abbreviation": "Isler v. Moore", "decision_date": "1872-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "74", "last_page": "77", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "67 N.C. 74" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "4 Dev. & Bat., 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Dev. & Bat.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 Dev. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Dev.", "case_ids": [ 11275785 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/15/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Hay. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hayw.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Hay 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hayw.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Dev. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Dev.", "case_ids": [ 11275785 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/15/0128-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 330, "char_count": 5848, "ocr_confidence": 0.411, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.07495224625065014 }, "sha256": "d64f2a913f3745d0348b6596d431f806cf52dace61c6fc82b1e5d1c15683ed9d", "simhash": "1:16e21accc978bdd5", "word_count": 1025 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:25.131400+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "B. M. ISLER vs. L. J. MOORE, D. B. EVERITT, H. B. HORN and others." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Boyden, J.\nIn this ease several questions were discussed by the counsel who argued the case, which the Court holds are entitled to no weight in the proper decision of the cause, and for that reason they will not be referred to in this opinion.\nIt was insisted on the argument by the plaintiff\u2019s counsel, that the parties who received the first judgments were guilty of a fraud upon the rights of the plaintiff, by indulging their executions, returnable to the same term of the Court at which this plaintiff obtained her judgment. And it was further gravely urged by plaintiff\u2019s counsel that having indulged the first' execution it must bo taken that this indulgence still continued, notwithstanding alias executions had been issued, and an actual sale made under these second executions, and the money paid by the purchaser, and the sale completed by a deed of the sheriff to the purchaser. No authority was cited for this new and extraordinary position.\nIt must he remarked that the question in this case is not as to the effect of a sale first made under a junior execution, and thereafter a sale made under a senior execution; but the question is, as to the title acquired by the purchaser at the first sale made under an execution of equal ii not a senior teste, as against a subsequent, purchaser under an execution of the same, or o\u00ed a subsequent teste.\nIt was decided as far back as 1794, after a very full discussion, in the case of Doe on demise of Bell v. Hill 1 Hay 72, that even a purchaser at a sale under a junior execution acquired a good title, as against a subsequent purchaser under an execution of a senior teste, and the law as then announced has been followed in our State ever since. See the cases of Ricks v. Blount, 4 Dev. 128. Jones v. Judkins, 4 Dev. & Batt. 445, and Perry v. Morris and others, 65 N. C. R. 221. This being the law in case of the purchaser at a sale under an execution of junior teste, how can it be insisted that in the case of an execution of a senior or of the same teste, the first purchaser does not acquire the title as against the subsequent purchaser. Two reasons were urged by the plaintiff\u2019s counsel ; First, that before mentioned, that the plaintiffs in the senior executions had indulged their first executions, and that the law presumed that the same indulgence still continued, notwithstanding what had been done under their alias executions ; Secondly, that the indulgence given the defendant, as to the first executions, had the effect to postpone their executions and to give the execution of the present plaintiff priority over the other executions, and as the sale in both cases was made within the sale hours on the same day, and near the same time, the plaintiff not only acquired the better title, but she was also entitled to all the money raised at such sale.\nNo authority was cited for these positions, and we think they are in direct conflict with the law as settled by numerous decisions in our own Courts. \u25a0 What reason can be given tor holding, that an execution, which is either o\u00ed even or of senior teste to that of the plaintiff, should not have quite as much effect, in passing the title, as one of junior teste ? And on the other hand, what reason or common sense could there be for holding that, because a plaintiff had indulged one execution the law presumed that this indulgence still continued, notwithstanding 'an alias execution had issued, and an actual sale had been made under this execution ?\nThere is no error. This will be certified.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Boyden, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Isler, for the plaintiff.", "Faircloth, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "B. M. ISLER vs. L. J. MOORE, D. B. EVERITT, H. B. HORN and others.\nA plaintiff having indulged one execution in his favor, there is no presumption that this indulgence extended to subsequent executions.\nUnder the old practice, a purchaser at a sale under a junior execution acquired a good title as against a subsequent purchaser under a senior execution. A fortiori, is this so, as against a purchaser under execution of equal teste.\n[Doe ex dem. Bell v. mil, 1 Hay. 72. Bichs v. Blount, 4 Dev. 128. Jones v. Judhins. 4 Dev. & Bat., 445, and Perry v. Morris, Go N. O. 221, cited and approved.]\nCivil action for the recovery of a tract of land, tried before Clarice, J., at January Special Term, 1872, of the Superior Court of Wayne.\nDoth parties claimed as purchasers at sheriff\u2019s sales under executions against D. B. Everitt.\nThe executions through which the defendants claimed (as owner and tenants) were ven. expos. The judgments on which they were basgd were confessed by Everitt at November Term, 1866, of Wayne County Court. Executions issued thereon to February Term, 1867,were levied on tlie land in controversy, and returned \u201cIndulged by plaintiff.\u201d Ven. expos, issued to May Term were returned without endorsement by the sheriff. Alias ven expos, were issued June 10th, 1867, returnable to August Term, and the land was sold by the sheriff of Wayne, August 19th.\nThe execution through which the plaintiff claimed was a ven. ex. in her iavor, issued June 1st, 1867, and upon affidavit (that the sheriff of Wayne was connected with the defendants in the execution and refused to do his duty,) placed in the hands of the sheriff of Greene. He also sold on the 19th August. The plaintiff\u2019s judgment against 3D. B. Everitt and others was obtained at February Term, 1867, of Wayne County Court, and the execution issued thereon was returned with a levy upon the said land, and an endorsement that no sale was made in obedience to Gen. Sickles\u2019 Order, No. 10.\nThe jury, upon issues submitted to them, found substantially the above facts, and that the sheriff of Wayne sold before the sheriff of Greene, both sales being within the prescribed hours for such sales.\nJudgment was rendered for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.\nIsler, for the plaintiff.\nFaircloth, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0074-01", "first_page_order": 84, "last_page_order": 87 }