Case Name: Edward P. Bassett et al. v. Willard J. Daniels et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1858-12
Citations: 10 Ohio St. 617
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward P. Bassett et al. v. Willard J. Daniels et al.
Judges: Brinkerhoee, Scott, Sutliee, and Peck, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 10
Pages: 501–504

Head Matter:
Edward P. Bassett et al. v. Willard J. Daniels et al.
An appeal perfected, suspends all proceedings upon the judgment appealed from.
An order confirming a sale of lands on execution and ordering the sheriff to make a deed to the purchaser, is a part of the proceedings to enforce a judgment; and a sale of real estate made before an appeal bond filed, will not be confirmed after the appeal is perfected.
This is a petition in error to reverse a final order of the court of •common pleas of Lucas county, overruling a motion for the confirmation of a sheriff’s sale of real estate.
At the March term, 1856, of the court of common pleas of Lucas-' county, and on the 10th day of March, in the case of Samuel W. Stimpson v. Milliard J. Daniels et al., judgment was rendered against the defendants, and an order for the sale of real estate allowed. From this judgment the defendants gave notice of their1 intention to appeal to the district court.
On the 21st day of March, 1856, the plaintiff caused an execution or order of sale to issue on said judgment, directed to the1 sheriff of said county, which was received by the sheriff on the-same day..
Said execution was forthwith levied upon the lands of the defendants, and the property so levied upon duly appraised; a copy of which appraisement was forthwith deposited with the clerk of' the court of common pleas.
*The proper and legal notice of the time and place of the sale of said property was duly given by advertisement; and on the 21st day of April, 1856, said lands and tenements were sold by said1 sheriff to the plaintiffs, who were the highest and best bidders' therefor, and for more than two-thirds of the appraised value of the same.
Said execution, with the sheriff’s proceedings thereon, was duly returned.
The court of common pleas, for the county of Lucas, closed its-March term, 1856, on the 11th day of April of that year.
On the 26th day of April, 1856, bond was filed by the defendants, and their appeal perfected.
At the June*term, 1856, of said court of common pleas, the purchasers under said sale, who are the plaintiffs in error, filed their motion for the confirmation of said sheriff’s sale. This motion fox confirmation was overruled, and these plaintiffs excepted, and to reverse the qrder overruling said motion, filed their petition in error in this court.
The several' assignments of error raise, substantially, but one question, to wit: Whether the purchasers, on their motion, were entitled to an order of confirmation?
Sill, Baker, Murray, French, Daniels, and Svjayne, for plaintiffs in error.
M. B. & B. Waite and Morton, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Swan, C. J.
The effect of perfecting an appeal to the district court is to render inoperative the judgment of the court of common pleas. The judgment is suspended, and no proceedings can be had under or by force of it after the appeal is actually taken. During the period which elapses between the rendition of the judgment and the filing of the appeal bond, the judgment creditor is entitled to execution, unless the same is stayed by the court on ^motion of the judgment debtor. Swan's Rev. Stat. 718,"sec. 683. The suspension of the judgment, however, by filing the a}D-peal bond, necessarily suspends and puts an end to all proceedings by execution or otherwise on the judgment. Executions issued and executed by levy and sale of personal property, before appeal bond filed, would probably be effectual to pass property to purchasers • for the subsequent suspension of the judgment could not affect what had been before-done and completed under the execution. It is claimed in this case that the sale of the real estate under the execution was complete and perfect before the appeal bond was filed that the title passed by and at the time of the sale; and that the court should have proceeded to confirm the sale, and to order the sheriff to execute a deed to the purchaser, notwithstanding the judgment was then suspended by the appeal.
The title does not pass to the purchaser, the judgment creditor is not entitled to the purchase money, the sheriff has no authority to make a deed to the purchaser, the purchaser is not entitled to the possession of the land, until the court have judicially determined that the sale has been legally made, and have confirmed the sale and ordered the sheriff to make a deed. The proceedings under the execution are in fieri, and not perfected until the court have judicially acted upon it. The sale itself and the deed of the sheriff, although in every respect legal and in pursuance of law, pass no title to the purchaser, without the order of confirmation by the court. Curtis v. Norton, 1 Ohio, 278.
The order confirming the sale is an integral part of the proceedings under the execution and judgment to perfect the sale; and until made, the sale is not consummated, so as to entitle the purchaser to a conveyance, and to vest in him a title.-
The appeal having intervened and suspended the operation of the judgment and the proceedings under it, before the sale was rendered effectual by confirmation, and the '^confirmation being a material step under the execution, we are of opinion that the court below did right in refusing to confirm*the sale, after the judgment was rendered inoperative and in effect vacated by the appeal.
It is said that the filing of the appeal bond being the act of the judgment debtor, this case comes within the general rule that a judgment debtor can not do anything after a sale to affect the rights of a purchaser. This general rule is undoubtedly correct, but it is, we think, inapplicable to this case. The law recognizes the right of the party to appeal, and provides for the effect of the appeal upon the judgment. The judgment creditor has a right to proceed to enforce his judgment notwithstanding the notice of appeal, but he does it subject to the right of the debtor to suspend, and in effect vacate the judgment, by perfecting an appeal; and a purchaser in such case may well be presumed to know of the notice of appeal entered with the judgment, and the rights of the judgment creditor to suspend proceedings on the judgment.
Order affirmed.
Brinkerhoee, Scott, Sutliee, and Peck, JJ., concurred.