Reed

Assuming that the execution was void, we submit that a sale which is utterly void, made upon a void execution, cannot operate as a satisfaction of the judgment. It is void, and accomplishes nothing. (Field v. Paulding, 3 Abb. Pr. 139 .)

The title does not fail by reason of any irregularity in the sale, but because the Sheriff had in fact no execution. And sec. 708 of the Code is not applicable to such a case.

James H Birch, Jr., and Bodley & Campbell, for the Respondent.

As Reed was the judgment-creditor, had the execution levied and the land sold, all under his own direction and supervision, and was personally present and bought the property, with a full and complete knowledge of all the facts, he could not (even if done within a reasonable time) invoke a Court of Equity to relieve him from a mere mistake of law, especially as there was a plain remedy under the statute. He must, therefore, stand by his own act in the premises, uninfluenced as they were, so far as other parties are concerned, by fraud, misrepresentation, or ignorance.

The doctrine caveat emptor fully applies to this case. (Boggs v. Hargrave, 16 Cal.; Herman on Executions, p. 361, sec. 214.) If, therefore, he…