“One who sells or agrees to sell an instrument purporting to bind any one to the performance of an act thereby warrants the instrument to be what it purports to be and to be binding according to its purport upon all parties thereto; and also warrants that he has no knowledge of any facts which tend to prove it worthless, such as the insolvency of any of the parties thereto, when that i is material, the extinction n of its obligations, or its invalidity for any cause.”
It is contended that the Mercantile Company, when it sold this sheriff’s certificate, warranted to the plaintiff that the certificate purported to be an instrument which entitled the plaintiff to a good and sufficient deed at the expiration of a year from its date, or a refund of the money paid; that furthermore, plaintiff in this connection was entitled to rely upon the state of title as then existing, and upon the regularity and validity of the proceedings in the execution sale as they then appeared of record; that the defendant Sinness, as attorney for the Mercantile Company, as well as the defendants Buttz and Aaker, then knew or had knowledge of matters concerning the pending litigation which affected the title upon the execution proceedings which eventually made the title of James, upon which the execution proceedings depended, invalid; that the acts of the defendants in parting with the assignment of the sheriff’s certificate and their connections in the litigation and proceedings had concerning this land operated to deceive the plaintiff, and created a trap, so that the plaintiff was compelled either to purchase the rights of the Mercantile Company or lose the land. It is further contended that the allegations of the complaint concerning the determination made by this court in the case of Buttz v. James must be taken as true, and that proof may be introduced to show that in fact, pursuant to such allegations, the title of James did fail; further, that the plaintiff, through the purchase of the sheriff’s certificate, does not stand in the position of a purchaser at a judicial sale, and was entitled further to rely upon representations appearing of record or as made through acts of the parties concerned.
Hon. A. G. Burr, trial judge, in extensive memoranda opinions, held that the gist of the action was the sale of the certificate, the assignment of that instrument by the Mercantile Company to the plaintiff; that neither Buttz nor Sinness had anything to do with such sale; and the confirmation of the sale by the defendant Buttz as a judge did not render him liable; that all he did under such order of confirmation was to declare that the sale had been made in compliance with the statute; that the fact that
