Case Name: William Greenwood against The Executors of Job Colcock
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1796-10
Citations: 2 Bay 67
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Greenwood against The Executors of Job Colcock.
Judges: Present, BuRke, Grihice and Bay.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 67–68

Head Matter:
William Greenwood against The Executors of Job Colcock.
October, 1796.
In sheriffs' sales, where the property a tllnTpeii riffshouknie” until the right is determm-ed, and them turn on the cordingto the dei!ls101*-
A bond give# to sheriff, to indemnify him for not returning an. execution, is. null and void by the couit-mon l a Wo
UPON a rule on the sheriff of Charleston district, to shew cause why he did not return the execution of fi. fa. which had issued in this case, and also why he did not pay into court the money he had levied thereon.
Upon shewing cause, the sheriff stated that the property he had levied on, by virtue of the above execution, was J % claimed at the time of sale by Major Butler, and that his agent, Mr. Delamptte, had purchased it in, and held it until the dispute about the right to the property was determined; and, moreover, that Mr. Delamotte, the agent of Major Butler., had given him, the sheriff, a bond of indemnity for not returning the execution.

Opinion:
In this case, the Court was of opinion, that where a sheriff sells property, by virtue of an execution, which is claimed by a third person, not a party to the suit, the rule was, for him to return the money into court to abide the event of the dispute, and then to make his return, conformably to the decision, on the back of the execution. But that it was very wrong, and contrary to every principle of justice, to suffer such party to get possession of the property, or to change the position of the parties by his own act, or to make himself a stakeholder until the right was determined. 1 Burr. 23. 29. Dalt. Comp. Sheriff, 247. 1 Keb. 901.
The court was further of opinion, that the bond given to the sheriff, by the purchaser in this case, to indemnify him for not returning the execution, was void in law, as it was evidently given to the sheriff to induce him to omit doing his duty, and it is very clear that all such contracts are void. Powell on Contracts, 186. 194, 195.
It was therefore ordered, that the sheriff do proceed forthwith to resell the same property at the risk of the pur chaser, and return the money into court, subject to the future order thereof, when the merits of this claim shall be determined.
Present, BuRke, Grihice and Bay.