2 Blackf. 32 | Ind. | 1826
It is contended that the execution of fieri facias did not authorise the sale; but that an inquest to inquire as to the rents and profits, and a venditioni exponas, were also
The act of 1818, sec. 2, governs this case, which was in the year 1822; and as the record shows no request for an inquest, none was necessary; nor was a venditioni exponas necessary, which was only required when there had been an inquest. The fieri facias, therefore, must be considered as having warranted the sale.
The case of Armstrong v. Jackson d. Elliott, Nov. term, 1822, cited by the defendant does not apply
The objection to the fieri facias and return, as evidence in this case, should have been overruled.
It is contended that the sheriff’s deed had not been properly acknowledged, and was therefore inadmissible. The deed appears on its face to have been regularly executed, and its execution is attested by subscribing witnesses. An acknowledgment is necessary for the admission of a deed to record, but is not essential to its validity. The want of a proper Certificate of acknowledgment was, therefore, no ground for rejecting the sheriff’s deed.
The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the issue are set aside, with’ costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Vol. 1. of these Rep. 210.