33 Tenn. 155 | Tenn. | 1853
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is upon a question arising upon the statute of limitations. The error relied upon is in the charge of the court.
We think there is no just ground of exception to the instruction, supposed to be erroneous. The ques
If there be error in the charge it is in a part not complained of, and is this: The Court, after instructing the jury that the relation between the judgment debtor, (suffered to remain in possession after a sale of his land by the sheriff,) and the purchaser at such sale, ,was not the relation of 'landlord and tenant, in the technical sense of the term, proceeded to state, that the “inquiry in such case is, did the execution debtor continue to hold the land as before, in opposition to the purchaser? If so, a holding for seven years protects him in his possession of the same land which was pronounced to be his when sold by judgment and execution against him.”
This instruction probably led the jury to the conclusion that the defendant was protected by the second section of the statute, not merely to the extent of his actual enclosures, but to the entire extent of the boun
The judgment will be reversed, and the case be remanded for a new trial.