It does not appear that the deputy sheriff levied the execution issued by the Justice of the Peace upon the land in question, but if he did, he had no further connection with it. The venditioni exponas issued to the Sheriff, and by virtue of it he sold the land, and the mere fact that a person who was the Sheriff’s deputy, but not chárged with selling it, purchased the land at the sale made by the Sheriff, could not render the sale void. The buyer- — -a deputy sheriff — had no official authority in connection with or control over the process, and the sale made under it, and he might bid and buy at it on the same footing as a person without official authority — indeed, as to the sále he had none. If the Sheriff and his deputy colluded and perpetrated a fraud in the sale and purchase, the defendant in the *391execution would have his remedy, but this would not render the sale void per se, nor could it affect adversely innocent purchasers.
The statutory regulations pertinent, prevailing at the time of the levy mentioned was made, required that the defendants in the execution should have notice of it and the return thereof, but the absence of such notice was only an irregularity that did not render the sale void. The purchaser was not bound to see that such notice was given, and if the defendant in the execution suffered injury because he did not have it, he had his remedy against the Sheriff or other officer. It seems, however, that he had knowledge of the sale, and did not complain of it on that or any account. The purchaser was not bound to take notice of such irregularities. Buck v Elliott, 4 Ired., 335.
Affirmed.