Wilson v. Miller

BiíENT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court, overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction and continuing it until final hearing. We have examined the bill of complaint and the exhibits, and think that the injunction should have been refused in the first instance, and the bill dismissed. The alleged irregularities and defeats in the proceedings of the Sheriff, by whom the sale to Wilson was made, are questions within the cognizance only of the Court, from which the execution issued and to which the return was made.

It was entirely competent for that Court to afford a proper and adequate remedy by setting aside the sale, upon motion made at a proper time and supported by evidence of an absence of proper notice, or other formality required in sales of that description. Courts of Equity have no jurisdiction to try such questions, and they cannot be made the subject matter of an injunction. Waters vs. Duvall, 6 G. & J., 76 ; Little vs. Price, 1 Md. Ch. Dec., 182; Nelson vs. Turner, 2 Md. Ch.

Dec., 73; Norris & Caldwell vs. Campbell, 27 Md., 688 . ⁹⁰ The fraudulent misrepresentations, charged as having been made by Bunnell to Miller, at the time of the sale in 1859, of the lot in question, as regards his having a clear and undisputed title, when in fact he had none, are no sufficient ground for granting an injunction, in the condition in which the case stood at the time of filing the bill. Wilson had purchased the property under an execution issued upon a judgment rendered for an alleged balance of the purchase money due, had paid the money and the judgment had been satisfied. If, as Miller alleges, he had never obtained any title to it and Bunnell could give him none, he is certainly not injured and has lost nothing by the sale. If the property were sold to him by a party who had no title, and the same property under the operation of a judgment is sold for the identical purchase money, and realises an amount sufficient to pay off the judgment, he in fact pays no part of the debt.

According then to the theory of the complainant, that Bunnell had no title to the property and could give him none, it is difficult to perceive