John Cadwallader, et al. r. Evans & Swift. confirmed before a deed could be made to the purchaser, was passed for the express purpose of removing all doubts as to the necessity of proving, when a title derived from a judicial sale was questioned, any of the preparatory steps. Before the cases of 15 Ohio, 441, Lessee of Paine v. Mooreland; and 17 Ohio, 409, Lessee of Cochran's heirs v. Loring, it had been held that failure to give notice, by publication, in cases of foreign attachment, was fatal to the jurisdiction of the court who had assumed it. The decision in these cases, however, settled the question, and declared that the jurisdiction attached, by the affidavit, issue, and service of the attachment. And such was the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 10 Peters, 460, Voorhees v. Bank of the United States; where the same question was made under the attachment law of Ohio. On the same principle, it was held, in 3 Ohio, 107, Allen's Lessee v. Parish, overruling 1 Ohio, 27, Patrick's Lessee v. Oosterout, that a purchaser at a sheriff's sale depends upon the judgment, the levy and the deed, and that all other questions are between the parties to the judgment, and the officer; and the vendee at administrator's sale is equally protected; 7 Ohio, part 1, 203, Ewing's Lessee v. Higby. See also 9 Ohio, 19, Stall v. Macalester. It was not required, then, before the statute, when the sale was made, and the deed delivered, without any supervision by the court of the administrator's or sheriff's proceedings, in a subsequent contest relative to the property, that the publication referred to should be proved. We do not find, in any view we can take of this objection, that it can be sustained upon any principle known to our law, or which has hitherto governed the action of our courts. We suppose, however, that all these objections are removed if the court had jurisdiction to make the orders of sale and confirmation. These being granted, or found to exist, the purchaser must be protected. It has long been the policy of our courts to uphold judicial sales, and in this general description we include those made by trustees, administrators, or John Cadwallader, et al. v. Evans & Swift. sheriffs, whether upon a decree, an order, or an execution. No technical irregularities are permitted to deprive the purchaser of the right he has acquired. There must be, not mere informality, however gross, or error, however apparent, but a palpable defect of power in the court, before his claim can be defeated. The security of titles requires this at the hands of every tribunal whose aid is invoked, in a case like the present, where nearly the full term of years has elapsed to complete a perfect right of possession, and the property has greatly increased in value. We must apply the strict rule to the party who seeks to set the sale aside, and look with favor upon the title of the purchaser. On the whole case, the judgment at special term is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Acknowledgment-Action. INDEX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. See DEDICATION, 4. ACTION- 1. An assignee of a claim of damages, resulting from injuries to personal 2. An action to quiet title can only be brought by a person in actual pos- 3. An action for damages will lie against a justice of the peace for refus- 5. An action will lie against the county commissioners in favor of a ser- 7. A bona fide holder of a check has a right of action against the drawee, 8. In actions for causing death by wrongful act, etc., the petition must 9. An action will lie against the county commissioners to recover com- 10. This court has jurisdiction of an action to compel an administrator to 13. See COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 3. MORTGAGE, 9. Administration Bond-Arbitration and Award. ADMINISTRATION BOND- 1. An administrator de bonis non has, at common law, no right of action 2. This court has no jurisdiction of an action founded on an administra- ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS- 1. The executors or administrators of a deceased mortgagor should be 2. In an action to recover compensation for causing death by wrongful Trust Co. 257. 3. In case of the death of the maker of a note, the presentment should be 4. Where a feme sole is co-administratrix with others, and afterward mar- AFFIDAVIT- 1. Alleging causes of attachment in the disjunctive is bad for uncertainty; 2. Verification may be made on belief, but the averments of the pleading 1. A demurrer and an answer to the same cause of action is not permis- 2. A motion to strike out defenses for uncertainty will not be entertain- 3. Under sections 124 and 125 of the code, the defendant in an action for 4. A motion will not be entertained to strike from an answer the state- ARBITRATION AND AWARD- 1. To authorize an award to be made a rule of court, the names of the Assessments-Attorneys at Law. ARBITRATION AND AWARD-Continued. 2. A submission once duly made, can not be revoked; Ib. 3. If one of the arbitrators is biased or interested, it is a disqualification 4. If the arbitrators receive testimony from one party without the knowl- ASSESSMENTS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1. ASSIGNMENT- 1. A conveyance, in trust, in form of a mortgage, made to one creditor 2. See DAMAGES, 3, 4; PARTNERSHIP, 2, 3. ATTACHMENT- 1. An affidavit in the disjunctive is bad for uncertainty; Rogers v. Ellis 2. Under section 230 of the code, in order to justify an attachment, the 3. It is proper practice to dismiss the action where an attachment has 5. The rule that property under levy is not subject to further seizure by 7. An obligation fraudulently incurred is no cause for an attachment, 8. The fraudulent conversion of notes, bills, etc., received in the usual 1. An attorney, assigned by the criminal court to defend an indigent 2. It is the duty of the court to assign counsel in such cases, and it is the |