Case Name: Bates vs. Dyer
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1848-09
Citations: 9 Hum. 162
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bates vs. Dyer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Bates vs. Dyer.
The act of 1848, cli. 196, sec. 2, provides that the election of a defaulter to any office of trust or profit shall be void. Newman was elected sheriff whilst in default, sold real estate as sheriff, and made deeds. The court held, on this state of facts, that he, was sheriff de facto, and that the validity of his acts should not be enquired into on collateral issues.
' Dyer sued Bates in ejectment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson county, and, on the trial before a jury, relied on a purchase of the real estate at execution sale, and a deed from Newman, sheriff of Jefferson county.
The defendant offered as evidence the record of a judgment, obtained against Newman as sheriff, and collector of State taxes, which was unsatisfied at the time of his re-election, and at the time of his making the deed of conveyance, on which the plaintiff relied. The transcript was rejected, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
R. H. Hynds and Arnold, for the plaintiff in error.
They cited act of 1848, ch. 196, sec. 2; 3 Phillips’ Ev. 820; 1 Starkie, 252; 3 Yer. 493.
Pecl¡, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Turley, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question seriously pressed upon the consideration of the court, in this case, is, as to the validity of a deed of bargain and sale, executed by Benj. F. Newman, acting sheriff of Jefferson county, on the 5th day of July, 1844, to the lessor of the plaintiff in ejectment, for the premises in dispute.
It is not denied but that Benjamin F, Newman was, at the date of the deed, acting as sheriff of the county of Jefferson, under an election, made in form, as required by law; and that as sheriff of the county he was warranted by law to make the deed; but it is contended, that bis election was irregular; and void, because at tbe time it was made, be was a public defaulter, and was, therefore, ineligible to tbe office of sheriff, under the provisions of tbe constitution of tbe State; which defendant offered to prove, but tbe court rejected tbe evidence.
In doing this, we think the court committed no error. At tbe time tbe deed was executed, Benjamin F. Newman was the acting sheriff of the county under an election made in due form; and although he was, at the time of his election ineligible, on account of his defalcation, yet this does not avoid his acts done as sheriff, before his election was annulled by the proper authority; previous to that event, though he was not sheriff de jure, yet he was de facto; and from public necessity, the acts of a public officer, exercising his office de facto, though not de jure, are valid as to third persons, and cannot be controverted in a collateral issue, such as this.
This question has been fully investigated by the court, in the case of the Farmers' and Merchants' Bank at Memphis vs. Chester, reported in 6 Hum. 458, in which it was held, that the acts of an officer de facto are valid so far as third persons are concerned.
It has been argued, that inasmuch as the election of Newman was a void election, he, therefore, could not be considered as a sheriff de facto; we do not think the objection a good one; his election was made in form of law, and its validity had to be tested by matter, extraneous, and third persons could not be presumed to know that he was acting without legal authority, and they ought not to be prejudiced thereby.
We, therefore, think the circuit judge committed no error in rejecting the proof offered by the defendant to impeach the deed under which the plaintiff in ejectment claimed, and affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.