Case Name: Lowry and Harris vs. M'Durmott
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1833-07
Citations: 5 Yer. 225
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lowry and Harris vs. M’Durmott.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Lowry and Harris vs. M’Durmott.
The interlocutory and final decree, upon which land has been sold, may he read in evidence by the purchaser under them, in an action of ejectment for the recovery of the land, without producing the bill and answer upon which they were made.
The purchaser of land under a decree dr execution, is entitled to possession of the land as soon as he has received the legal title, and is not compelled to wait until two years have expired.
This was an action of ejectment instituted by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, for the recovery of six hundred and fifty acres of land. The writ was returned to November term, 1831, of the circuit court for Monroe county, and at November term, 1832, a trial was had, and verdict for the plaintiff below. A rule was entered for a new trial, and discharged by the court, from which the plaintiffs in error have prosecuted an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court.
The premises in dispute had been sold by an interlocutory decree of this court, and purchased by M’Durmott, and a final decree was made, divesting said Lowry of all title, and vesting it in the purchaser, M’Durmott. Upon the trial below, the interlocutory and final decrees were produced and offered to be read as evidence of title in M’Durmott, to the reading of which, without a production of the bill and answers in the cause, the defendants below objected. The court overruled the objection, and permitted the decrees to be read to the jury. The record shows, that this suit was instituted within two years from the time the purchase and final decree was made, and before the time limited for the redemption of lands sold under executions at law, and decrees of a court of equity, had expired.
The circuit court charged the jury, that the plaintiff below was entitled to possession as soon as his purchase was completed, and the final decree made, to which opinion of the court the defendants excepted.
R. J. Meigs, for plaintiffs in error.
(S'. Jarnagin and E. Alexander, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Peck, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
There was no error in admitting as evidence the decrees of the court ordering a sale of the land, and vesting the title to the same in M'Durmott, the purchaser, without producing the bill and answers upon which they were made. The' acts requiring the registration of decrees, make them notice to all the world, and they are conclusive against the parties to them.
The plaintiff below, the purchaser, had the right to have possession of the land as soon as the sale was perfected by confirmation of the master's report in the court ordering and decreeing a sale thereof. The legal title, and a right of entry, was vested in the purchaser by the decree of confirmation, and could only be divested by a redemption under the act of assembly.
Judgment affirmed.