Case Name: Lessee of John Porter and Andrew Porter against Alexander Neelan
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1804-10
Citations: 4 Yeates 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lessee of John Porter and Andrew Porter against Alexander Neelan.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 4
Pages: 108–108

Head Matter:
Lessee of John Porter and Andrew Porter against Alexander Neelan.
Sheriffs sale of lands without a venditioni exponas, invalid.
Ejectment for 200 acres in Luzerne township.
The plaintiff claimed the lands under a sheriff’s deed. They were levied on as the property of Richard Hawkins, but sold without any writ of venditioni exponas. The only question before the court, was, whether the defect of this writ, vitiated the sale.
Cited in i W. & S. 528 in support of the decision that upon a written waiver of an inquisition by a defendant whose real estate is seized in execution, the sheriff shall proceed to sell upon the fieri facias before the-return day . thereof, without any further writ: but a sale made after the return day, although continued by adjournment from a day prior, is void, and vests no title in the purchaser.
Cited in 2 W. & S. 289; 14 Pa. 79, as an illustration of a case where a sheriff’s sale was declared invalid on account of an irregularity in the proceedings.
Distinguished in 3 W. & S. 319.
Cited in 15 Pa. to show that a sale of real estate without waiver of inquisition or condemnation by an inquest, is void.
The act of June 16, 1886, expressly requires the holding of an inquest.
Messrs. Addison and Kennedy, pro qzier.
Mr. J. Ross, pro def.

Opinion:
*By the Court.
The act of 1705, "for taking lands r* "in execution for payment of debts," expressly directs, 1 I09 that on the condemnation of the lands, a venditioni exponas shall issue, and under this authority the sheriff sells the lands. The act of 23d March 1764, is a strong exposition of the former law. It renders sheriff's deeds and sales made bona fide, theretofore, before the publication of the act, for valuable consideration, valid in law, though there had been no venditioni exponas issued. But the act is in this particular, wholly retrospective, and has no effect on future cases. The necessary consequence is, that we cannot validate the present sale, and the deed made thereon on the 26th April 1791.
The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.