#### *Den on demise of*JACKSON STEWART *n.*JOHN RUTHERFORD.

A sheriff cannot, by an agent, purchase property at his own sale.

This was an action of ejectment, tried before Caldwell, J. at tbe Spring Term, 1857, of Taney Superior Court.

Tbe plaintiff, as sheriff of Taney County, bad in bis bands a *venditioni exponas,*founded upon tbe levy of a justice’s execution, in favor of Isaac A. Pearson, against one Keller, under which the land in dispute, was sold to one Brayles at the sum of 03,50. A deed was made to tbe said Brayles by tbe plaintiff, ¿s sheriff, dated 17th of May, 1854, and on the same clay Brayles conveyed the land back to tbe plaintiff at $12.

The declaration, in this case, was served on Keller, and the defendant, Kutherford, was allowed to come in and defend in bis stead, by entering into tbe common rule. Tbe defendant, after producing a deed from Keller to him, reciting a consul-*484eration of $200, showed the following facts: The principal of Pearson’s debt, against Keller, was about $29, and the cost $5,43. In March, Keller paid the plaintiff on the execution $29, and took his receipt for the same. At April Term, of the court of Taney, Pearson and Keller met, and early in the week they came to an understanding that the land was not to be sold, which was communicated to the plaintiff, who-assented to the arrangement. Both Pearson and Keller left the court-house on Thursday or Friday of the court week under the impression that the land was not to be sold. Without any further notice to the parties interested in the debt, the land was, next day, exposed to sale by plaintiff under this execution, and bid off by Brayles, as heretofore stated- — few persons being present.

The Court, in his charge to the jury, told them that there was evidence to leave to them, tending to show that Brayles had purchased the land for Stewart, the plaintiff; that if such was the fact, the sale was void, and the plaintiff could not recover. Plaintiff excepted to this charge.

Yerdict for the defendant. The Coxrrt rendered a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

*Edney,*for the plaintiff.

Gaith&r, and Avery, for the defendant.

Nash, C. J.

There is no error. The plaintiff, as slierff of Yancy County, had in his hands an execution against one Keller, which was levied on the land in dispute, and at the sale, one Brayles was the highest bidder at the price of three dollars and fifty Cents. The land was worth three hundred, or three hundred and fifty dollars. About a month after, the sale to Brayles, the plaintiff executed a conveyance to him of the land, and on the same day, Brayles executed a conveyance to him of the same land. Ilis Honor instructed the jury in substance, that if Brayles purchased the land for the plaintiff, the sale wras void, and the plaintiff could not recover. There can be no question of the correctness of the charge. There is no *485principle in our law better settled, than that a sheriff cannot purchase at his own sale, and it would be a miserable evasion of the law if he could rightfully do that by an agent which he is forbidden to do himself. If, by so shallow a contrivance as this case presents, the law can be eluded, the principle, forbidding a sheriff to prostitute his office to his own iniquitous gain, would not be worth a straw. The importance of the prohibition imposed upon the sheriff could not be better exemplified than by the facts set forth in this case. The plaintiff and the defendant in the execution, settled their business to their mutual satisfaction, and the plaintiff was informed of it, and told that the land was not to be sold. The parties left the ground, and on the following day, in the absence of the defendant in the execution, when but a few persons were present, the land, worth $300, was sold, and Brayles proclaimed the purchaser at the sum of $3,50, and when the conveyance was made by the plaintiff to Brayles, he immediately recon-veyed it to the sheriff at the nominal price of $12.

The weight and effect of the testimony was left to the jury, and they, by returning a verdict for the defendant, found that the plaintiff was himself the purchaser through his agent, Brayles. See *Foard*v. Blount, 3 Ire. Rep. 517 ; *McLeod*v. *McCall,*3 Jones’ Rep. 87.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.