delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff produced a title to himself, valid upon its face, and covering the entire tract of land, derived under a North Carolina grant to Edward .Harris, for six hundred and forty acres, dated the 18 th' of May, 1789.
The defendant’s title purports to be founded on а tax sale. It appears that said tract of land was reported by the sheriff and collector of Dyer county to the Circuit Court of said county, at the February Term, 1848, for the taxes of the preceding year, in the name of the plaintiff Williams, and that a judgment of condemnation was rendered, an order of sale issued, and a sаle made of said tract of land by the sheriff, who afterwards executed a deed to the defendant Harris for the same. In 1849, said tract of land was again reported to the Circuit Court of the same county, in the name of Williams the plaintiff, for the taxеs of 1848, and the like proceedings were had for the condemnation and sale of the same; in pursuance of which, the land was again sold and conveyed by the ' sheriff • to the defendant Harris.
In the several proceedings in both instances — the sheriff’s report to the Court, the judgment of condem
Under color of the conveyanсes thus obtained, the defendant Harris entered upon and took possession of the land, and claims the right to hold the entire tract, as well the part lying in Obion as that in Dyеr.
It is too clear to admit of discussion, that the foregoing proceedings and sale — so far at least as respects that portion of the tract situate in Obion county — are simply void, and that in virtue of his purchase and sheriff’s deed the defendant acquired no color of claim or title to that part of the land; nor is the titlе of the plaintiff to the same in the slightest degree affected by the proceedings.
But it is argued — and so the Circuit Judge instructed the jury — that, by the construction placed by this Court on the act of 1844, ch. 92, § 1, in Tharp vs. Hart, 2 Sneed’s Rep., 569, the validity of the sales under which the defendant claims cannot be questioned or impeached on the ground before stated, unless the plaintiff had shown that the taxes were duly paid before the judgment of condemnation was rendered; and, consequently, that, having failed to do so, the titlе of the defendant acquired under the tax sales must be regarded, for all the purрoses of the present case, as valid, and superior to that of the plаintiff.
This reasoning, we think, is altogether unsound. The act of 1844 has no application tо a case like the present; neither has the case of Tharp vs. Hart. The statute only рrecludes the party from availing himself of irregu
Upon this ground, tbe proceedings of tbe Circuit Court of Dyer are void, so far аt least as regards that part of tbe land within tbe limits of Obion county. And in refusing to permit tbe plaintiff to avail himself of this objection on tbe trial, tbe Court erred.
Judgment reversed.