Case Name: Jacob Rhonemus v. Robert G. Corwin
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1859-11
Citations: 9 Ohio St. 366
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Rhonemus v. Robert G. Corwin.
Judges: Scott, Sutliee, and G-holson, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 9
Pages: 293–295

Head Matter:
Jacob Rhonemus v. Robert G. Corwin.
Where a decree in chancery, made by the Supreme Court of a county, under the constitution of 1802, for the sale of lands by the sheriff as upon executions at law, “ upon receiving an order for that purpose," was remanded to the common pleas for execution; and thereupon the clerk of the common pleas issued merely a certified copy of the decree of the Supreme Court, and containing no description of the land, except by reference to other parts of the record, a sale thereupon made, though not void, was irregular and rightfully set aside.
In error to the district court of Clinton county.
The' case is, in substance, as follows:
The Supreme Court for Clinton county, in 1848, began on the 5th, and ended on the 6th, of June.
The next term, thereafter, of the common pleas, began July 18th.
The Supreme Court, at that term, rendered a final decree in chancery between these parties in a certain suit there pending.
This decree found that Rhonemus had a valid lien on the lands described in the bill to the amount of $62; and, then, it proceeded to order Corwin to pay the $62, with interest and certain costs, into the hands of the clerk of the Supreme Court, for the use of Rhone-mus, within thirty days from the rising of the court; and, then, it was “further ordered that, in default of said j>ayment of said sum of $62 and costs aforesaid, ;that execution issue therefor as upon judgments at law; and that, in default of the ^payment of the said sum of $62, it is ordered and decreed that the sheriff of Clinton county, upon receiving an order for that purpose, proceed to sell, as upon judgments and executions at law, said land in said bill described; and the court do order that on the payment of said money and costs in the court of common pleas, the injunction, heretofore granted, be dissolved,” etc.
On the 5th of July, 1848, a mandate was issued from the Supreme Court to the court of common pleas, to “cause execution to be had of said decree of the said Supreme Court, according to law.”
The mandate was deposited and filed in the common pleas, at July term, 1848, and execution awarded on the decree at the same term.
On the 29th of May, 1849, the clerk of the common pleas issued a certified copy of the decree of the Supreme Court, as remanded to the common pleas for execution; after his ordinary certificate, adding, he or somebody else, a description of the premises set out in the bill, and referred to in the decree, which description is neither signed nor certified by any one.
The sheriff received the copy of the decree the same day, and proceeded to make sale of the lands. The sale took place on the 7th of July, 1849.
On the 14th of September, Í852, a motion was made to confirm the sale.
This motion was continued, from time to time, until the 7th of April, 1855, when the court, finding that, by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court remanded to the common pleas, and a copy thereof duly certified and delivered by the clerk to the sheriff, the sale had, in all respects, been made, in conformity to law, confirmed the sale, and ordered a deed to be made. From this decree an appeal was taken.' At the July term, 1856, of the district court, the case was heard, and a final decree entered finding the sale void, and setting the same aside, on the ground that no valid order had been issued to the sheriff, and that the *copy of the order, on which he made the sale, conferred no legal authority for that .purpose.
The case is now in this- court, to revise the decree of the district court, and reinstate the order of confirmation made by the common pleas.
P. B. Wilcox, for plaintiff in error.
Durbin Ward, Galeb B. Smith, and D. P. Lowe; for defendant in ei'ror.

Opinion:
Brinkerhoff, C. J.
It will be noticed that this case came into the district court by appeal from an o^der of the common pleas, confirming a sale made in a chancery proceeding. Such an appeal might be taken. Hey v. Schooley, 7 Ohio (pt. 2), 48; Kern's Adm'r v. Foster, 16 Ohio, 276. The order #f confirmation made by the common pleas being vacated by the appeal, the cross-motions, to confirm the sale on the one hand, and to set it aside on the other, stood as original motions in the district court; and the question was, not whether the sale was void, but simply, whether it was regular. We do not think it was void; but if it was irregular simply, the district court was warranted in setting it aside, and its order ought not to be reversed. Was it regular? By the terms of the decree of the Supreme Court, the sheriff was authorized to make sale only "upon receiving an order for that purpose." An order from whom? From the common pleas, obviously, for to that court the decree was sent by mandate for execution; and it was for that court to pass upon the regularity of the sale. But no order of sale was issued from the common pleas. There was a certified copy merely of the -decree of the Supreme Court, made out by the clerk of the common pleas. It was directed to nobody; it ordered nothing; it did not even describe the premises to be sold. It had none of the requisites of a writ, as prescribed by law; and had the sheriff neglected to sell, he would not-'*have been liable either to amercement or to the attachment for contempt. For aught that appears in the record, it may have been made out merely to be used in evidence or as a muniment of title.
We think the sale was irregular, and was properly set aside.
Decree affirmed.
Scott, Sutliee, and G-holson, JJ., concurred.
Peck, J., was absent.