Bonham v. Bishop

Citations

• 23 S.C. 96

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the defendants, in action for the recovery of real property, admit that the plaintiffs are the heirs at law of a person who once had title, but claim the title now to be in themselves, the onus is upon the ■ defendants to prove their title.</p> <p>2. Judgment, execution, levy, and sale are all links in the chain of title to property purchased at sheriff’s sale; and while generally a purchaser is not required to look into the regularity of the process under which the sale is made, this is not so where the process is absolutely void, or where the purchaser is the plaintiff in the execution.</p> <p>3. Parties cannot claim the ownership of a tract of land under a judgment in their favor in a former action of trespass to try titles, and at the same time claim it as purchasers at sheriff’s sale, under their own execution issued for the damages and costs only, in the same case; the two claims are absolutely inconsistent.</p> <p>4. A purchaser of land at a tax sale in 1867 was not entitled to recover the land for a longer term than seven years, under the act of 1791. 7 Stat.. 277.</p> <p>5. A vested remainder or reversionary interest in land is, before it vests in possession, the subject of levy and sale under execution, and it is not necessary to state in the levy or in the deed the nature of the interest so levied and sold. Mb Justice McGowan not concurring, under the facts of this case.</p> <p>6. The judgment in a case tried by a jury cannot be affirmed upon grounds not submitted to the jury. If the instructions were erroneous, and yet not immaterial, there must be a new trial.</p>