Case Name: Hall vs. Heffly
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1846-04
Citations: 6 Hum. 444
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hall vs. Heffly.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 444–446

Head Matter:
Hall vs. Heffly.
1. A judgment which is not void on its face cannot be'attacked collaterally.
2. Where land is levied on by virtue of a justice’s execution, it is not necessary to send up the evidence on which the judgment was rendered, but only the original process and returns thereupon, the judgment, execution and returns.
3. An entry is subject to execution sale, and the grant which issues afterwards in the name of the execution debtor inures to the benefit of the purchaser.
This is an action of ejectment instituted by Heffly-against Hall, in, the circuit court of Henderson. It was tried on the general issue, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. . The plaintiff appealed, and the judgment was reversed in the supreme court at the April term, 1845, (see 5 Humph.) It was again tried by Judge Read and' a jury of Henderson at the April term, 1846. The plaintiff claimed, by virtue of án execution sale, the premises in possession of defendant, and introduced, in support of his title, the record of a judgment of condemnation of said land in the circuit court of Henderson. This record contained a warrant against Hall and Hunt, with endorsements of service and of judgment. The terms of the judgment by the justice of the peace was in the following words: “Judgment in favor of the .plaintiff for the sum of $107 and costs. L. C. Smith, J. P.” This transcript contained also the execution endorsed with a return of no personal property and a levy on real estate sued for in this action, the condemnation of the land, a ven-ditioni exponas, and sale. The sheriff executed a deed to plaintiff. It appeared that, after the sale, a grant was issued to the defendaiit by the State- for the land in question, he having held it previously by treaty.
Bullock and Gibbs, for the plaintiff in error.
McLanahan, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Tulrey, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was before this court at its last term, when it was held that the entry of the land in dispute in Flail's name, in Henderson county, was liable to execution, and that the proceedings by which it was sold were regular and that the plaintiff's lessee was entitled to recover the possession of the premises. There is nothing in the case as it is now presented to change those views. The objections now urged, are— 1st, that the judgment of the circuit court, condemning the land to be sold,. has not embodied the evidence upon which the judgments before the justices were rendered, so that it does not appear that the justices had jurisdiction to render the same, they being for an amount above one hundred dollars.
We have repeatedly decided that a judgment, which is not void upon its face, cannot be collaterally attacked. These judgments, upon their face, are good. They are for an amount within the jurisdiction of a justice. • But, furthermore, the statute,- in requiring that all the papers of a case removed from the justice to the circuit.court, for the purpose of selling lands for its satisfaction, shall be recorded, does not include documentary evidence upon which the judgment was rendered, nor depositions, but only the papers which constitute the suit, viz, the process and returns, the judgment and execution, and the returns.
2. It is contended that the grant upon this entry has been issued to Hall, and that, therefore, he has a legal title, and cannot be turned out of possession by the plaintiff, who-has nothing but an equity.
This objection is not available, for two reasons — 1st, the entry being subject by statute to execution sale, the grant issued after the sale in the name of the enterer, will inure to the purchaser, and constitute a muniment of his title by relation, from the date of the entry; 2nd, because the record shows that the grant in this ease was really issued before the sale, and, therefore, the land, in any and every point of view, was legally liable to execution, and the lessee of the plaintiff has acquired a perfect legal title thereto.
Judgment affirmed.