Case Name: HARVEY THOMPSON vs. NATHANIEL RICHARDSON
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1849-10
Citations: 12 Mo. 576
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARVEY THOMPSON vs. NATHANIEL RICHARDSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
HARVEY THOMPSON vs. NATHANIEL RICHARDSON.
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
Glover & Campbell, for defendant.,,
1st. The execution w.as paid off, and was therefore fwnclns officio, and. all power in the ofiicet, to act under it was spent. 3 Mon. 338. The sheriff is not entitled to. receive commission on . money not paid to him. Seo Rev. code 1835 page 26,9, 38. But conceding that he liad, yet the power of sale, the plaintiff in error was not an innocent purchaser fqr valuable consideration, without notice : no deed was ever made to him, and it does not appear that the purchase money was paid. Judgment paid, sale void, 15 John 443;. 7 John 535 ; 8 Coke 96. In Woodcock vs. Bennett, the execution issued after a year and a day after the revival, and held voidable only.
1 Cowen R. 712. Jn Jackson vs. Caldwell, the question was discussed, but not decided. 1 Cow. 638; 6 Men. 33, sale without authority void. IS Johps 441, was a sale for the taxes which was paid void. 4Dallas 214, was a case where cassa was levied, and property ¡afterwards sold under a ft fa void—whore the writ will justify the officer, it.will pass title 9 Mis. Rep. 136, paid, party bot. void ; 16 John 443,
2d. The plaintiff had power to order a return of the execution, and that disarmed tl>e sheriff of a power of sale,
3d. No exception was.taken to the opinion of tbe; circuit court, which, can he revived in this , case—true there is a general objection on the record to the whole action of the court, but there is not that particularity which the practice demands., 1 Cowon 622 & 9th Mo. R. 379; Vaughn., vs. Bank Mo ; lb. 291;' lb, 305.
4th The sheriff should,have looked to the plain tiff, for his commission, and in no event could he sell the defendant’s land;
5th. The record in this case is imperfect in not showing what wastlie contents of a paper which was before the court, but is stated by the clerk to h,avc been lost. This court capnot therefore reverse the judgment-.
6th. The sale upon its face was fraudulent and oppressive on the part of the officer; and the. inadequacy of the consideration shows it.

Opinion:
Judge Napton
delivered the opinion of the, court.
The judgment is affirmed for want of an assignment of error.