JUDICIAL DECISIONS

First two sentences of this section protect innocent purchaser from secret equity. Johnson v. Equitable Sec. Co., 114 Ga. 640, 40 S.E. 787 (1902).

Innocent purchaser is protected though execution is not returned. Brooks v. Rooney, 11 Ga. 423 (1852).

Innocent purchaser was not chargeable with sheriff's neglect to advertise as required by former Code 1933, § 39-1101 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-13-140); the purchaser was only required to see, pursuant to former Code 1933, § 39-1311 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-13-168), that the officer has authority to sell, and that the officer is apparently proceeding under the prescribed forms, and the title of such an innocent purchaser is not affected by the sheriff's failure to advertise the sale. Dooley v. Bohannon, 191 Ga. 7, 11 S.E.2d 188 (1940).

Mere failure of the sheriff to advertise the sale for the requisite full ten days under the provisions of former Code 1933, § 39-1204 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-13-164) would not of itself render the sale void. The provisions of law governing the advertisement of the property for a particular time or in a particular way are merely directory to the sheriff, and any such neglect on the sheriff's part may subject the sheriff to a suit for damages at the instance of the party injured, but does not affect the title of the purchaser unless there was actual fault on the purchaser's part, such as collusion between the purchaser and the sheriff. Hodges v. Cousins, 88 Ga. App. 645, 77 S.E.2d 83 (1953).

Last sentence of this section imposes duty on purchaser to see that judgment and levy are complete. Jones v. Easly, 53 Ga. 454 (1873).

Purchaser must personally determine the validity of judgment and execution issued thereon, the levy made by the sheriff, and the sale or deed of the property. The purchaser buys at the purchaser's peril insofar as the judgment, the levy, and the deed are concerned. Milam v. Adams, 216 Ga. 440, 117 S.E.2d 343 (1960); May v. Macioce, 191 Ga. App. 491, 382 S.E.2d 198 (1989).

Caveat emptor applies to judicial sales. Milam v. Adams, 216 Ga. 440, 117 S.E.2d 343 (1960).

In all judicial sales in Georgia, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies: that the purchaser at such a sale must at the purchaser's peril ascertain that the officer making the sale has competent authority to sell under prescribed forms, that such purchaser cannot repudiate a bid when there is a defective title or no title at all, unless there is fraud, and that a purchaser at such a sale is bound to look to the judgment, the levy, and the deed. Brady v. Smotherman, 51 Ga. App. 480, 180 S.E. 862 (1935).

Doctrine of caveat emptor is applicable when the purchaser at a sheriff's sale gets a defective title, and also when no title to the property sold passes to the purchaser, the sheriff's sale being void on account of a grossly excessive levy. Brady v. Smotherman, 51 Ga. App. 480, 180 S.E. 862 (1935).

Judicial sale which is declared void passes no title to purchaser. Brady v. Smotherman, 51 Ga. App. 480, 180 S.E. 862 (1935).

Purchaser acquires no title if deed conveys no title because defendant in fieri facias has no leviable interest in property. Milam v. Adams, 216 Ga. 440, 117 S.E.2d 343 (1960).

Sale is invalid when court ordering sale had no jurisdiction. Walker v. Morris, 14 Ga. 323 (1853).

Purchaser at sheriff's sale acquires no title if sheriff has no authority to sell. Bell v. Chandler, 23 Ga. 356 (1857).

Misdescription in levy upon land does not render levy void if the land can be readily identified. Boggess v. Lowrey, 78 Ga. 539, 3 S.E. 771 (1887); Burson v. Shields, 160 Ga. 723, 129 S.E. 22 (1925).

Failure of officer levying on real estate to give tenant written notice does not affect title acquired by a bona fide purchaser under such levy; an innocent purchaser is bound only to see that the officer has competent authority to sell and that the officer is apparently proceeding to sell under the prescribed form. Clark v. C.T.H. Corp., 181 Ga. 710, 184 S.E. 592 (1936).

Cited in Dotterer v. Pike, 60 Ga. 20 (1878); Brunswick Sav. & Trust Co. v. National Bank, 102 Ga. 776, 29 S.E. 688 (1898); Copelan v. Kimbrough, 149 Ga. 683, 102 S.E. 162 (1920); Holt v. Laurens, 193 Ga. 136, 17 S.E.2d 571 (1941).

RESEARCH REFERENCES