Kinney v. Knoebel

Citations

• 47 Ill. 417

Syllabus

<p>I. Sheriff’s deed—validity of title founded on. In deraigning title from a sheriff’s deed, it is necessary to show only a valid judgment, execution and levy, and a sheriff’s deed, appearing to have been made by virtue of such judgment and execution.</p> <p>2. Sheriff’s return—does not affect title. The title of a purchaser at a sheriff’s sale will not be defeated by reason of the sheriff making no return or a defective one.</p> <p>S. Variance—between certificate and return. But if the return and certificate of purchase are put in evidence with the deed, and there is such a discrepancy between them as to raise a presumption that the sheriff has made a conveyance to a person not entitled to it, then such discrepancy should be explained.</p> <p>4. So, where there is a variance as to the time of the sale, if it appears that a sale upon either of the days named would be legal, and that both refer to the same judgment, such variance is immaterial.</p> <p>8. Emdence—irrelevant as to trusts and uses of the purchase. Where a sheriff’s return shows that lands were bid in by one for another, evidence offered for the purpose of showing that the bidder bought for himself, is properly excluded, in a case not arising between these parties.</p>