It was admitted in tbe pleadings tbat under a judgment heretofore rendered in tbe Superior Court of Martin County, in an action entitled “Eli Bowen and others v. A. L. Mizelle,” tbe present defendant B. A. Critcher was appointed commissioner of tbe court and ordered to convey a one-balf interest in tbe land in controversy in tbat suit to tbe plaintiff A. L. Mizelle upon tbe payment to tbe said commissioner of tbe sum of two hundred and fifty dollars. It was also admitted tbat instead of conveying tbe land to tbe plaintiff tbe commissioner conveyed tbe land to defendant Ethel M. Rogerson, who is tbe daughter of tbe plaintiff. This was done without authority from tbe plaintiff.
We agree witb the court below tbat tbe commissioner was without power to convey tbe land to any person other than to tbe plaintiff, and *642that his deed to the defendant Ethel M. Rogerson was inoperative and void. The judgment under which he acted fixed the limits of his authority. There was no evidence sufficient to require its submission to the jury that the plaintiff had authorized or acquiesced in the conveyance to the defendant Rogerson, or that he had in any manner conveyed his interest in the land to her or her husband.
It was accordingly adjudged that the deed to the defendant Rogerson was void, and the defendant B. A. Critchér, Commissioner, was directed to convey the one-half interest in the land to the plaintiff upon the payment by the plaintiff to the commissioner of the sum of $139.00. This amount appears to have been agreed to in view of the amounts received by defendants Rogerson from the rents of the land, and there was no exception to this part of the judgment brought forward in the appeal. The commissioner seems to have acted under a misapprehension in the attempted conveyance to Ethel M. Rogerson, and no costs were taxed against him.
We think the ease has been correctly decided, and the judgment of the Superior Court is
Affirmed.