56 Ind. 451 | Ind. | 1877
In this action, the appellant was plaintiff, and the appellees were the defendants, in the court below.
And the appellant asked the court below, on the hearing of the premises, to set aside said sale and declare the same null and void as to the appellant, and to order said money paid into court by the appellee Berryman, for the use of the appellant, and for all other proper relief.
To this complaint the appellees separately demurred, for the alleged insufficiency of the facts stated therein to constitute a cause of action, which demurrers were sustained by the court below, and to this decision the appellant excepted. And judgment was rendered, upon the demurrers, for the appellees.
In this court, the only alleged error, assigned by the appellant, is, that the court below erred, in sustaining the appellees’ demurrers to his complaint. The appellant says, that “ he labored under a mistake ” in his purchase of the lot, described in his complaint, at sheriff’s sale; and he claims that he ought to he relieved from his mistake, and have his purchase-money returned to him.
The purchaser at a sheriff’s sale buys at his own risk; there is no warranty, express or implied, in any such sale.
In the case of Brunner v. Brennan, 49 Ind. 98, Worden, J., said:
“ The purchaser of property at sheriff’s sale stands in the situation of a purchaser of real estate who has taken a conveyance without covenant. In such case, in the absence of fraud, he can neither recover back, nor defend against an action to recover, the purchase-money, on the ground of a failure of title.”
The ease cited is decisive of the case at bar; for,in this case, there is no charge of fraud in appellant’s complaint. As to the liability of the sheriff and the rights of a pur
In our opinion, the court below committed no error in this case, in sustaining the appellees’ demurrers to appellant’s complaint.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.