") I From Northampton, J
’When a Superior Court is requested to instruct a Jury on a point relative to which no testimony was offered, and declines to do so, it furnishes no ground for a new trial.
Ejectment to recover a tract of land, formerly owned by one Charles Edmunds, under whom both Plaintiff and Defendant claimed.
. On the 29th of November, 1817, Edmunds conveyed the lands in dispute, together with certain negroes, to Freeman, in trust, for the benefit of the creditors of the grantor$ the deed contained the usual power to the trustee to sell.
The Defendant claimed title under a Sheriff’s deed, for the land in dispute, dated 25th of February, 1818, which wras made by virtue of an execution against Charles Edmunds, issuing from Northampton County Court, December Term, 1817. The Defendant exhibit1 *6oil, also, in evidence,'three executions against Charles Edmunds, issuing September Term, 1817, of Northampton County Court, returned to the next December Term, an endorsement of a levy on some of the negroes named in the deed of trust •, alias writs of fi. fa. issued from December Term, 1817, and at March, 1818, were returned with the Sheriff’s endorsement that they were satisfied by a sale of the negroes, and that the sum remaining in his hands, after satisfaction, he had paid to the order of Freeman, who claimed it as trustee. The Defendant contended, that if Freeman had received any portion of the money arising from the sale of the land by the Sheriff, that it amounted to a confirmation of the sale, and that he could not recover in this action, and requested that the Jury should beso instructed, which the Court declined, and the Plaintiff'had a verdict,* new trial refused, judgment and appeal.-
Per Curiam.
It cannot be perceived, from the case, .that any evidence was given on the point relative to-which the Court was asked to intruct the Jury. It was an abstract question, on which the Court could not, properly, give any opinion.
Judgment must be affirmed.