It is not denied by the plaintiffs, that Lewis at one time had a priority of lien over them, by reason that his judgment was first docketed. Dougherty v. Logan, 70 N. C. Rep. 548.
But it is contended that he waived or lost this priority by the direction which he gave the sheriff' on 7th June, 1873, to defer the sale which had been advertised to be made on that day.
There are dicta in the cases cited by the counsel for plaintiffs, which say that if a plaintiff in a senior execution defers a sale in fraud of, or to the injury of, a junior execution, he thereby loses his priority of lien.
But it is difficult to see how by such conduct he could either defraud or injure the junior creditor, who had a right notwithstanding any directions to the sheriff from the senior creditor, to proceed to sell under his execution. Under such a sale, it was held prior to the Code of Civil Procedure, that the purchaser acquired a title to the property free from the lien of the *426senior execution, and it therefore in any event sold for its full value. The contest between the two creditors was simply upon the distribution of the fund; and it would seem hard upon the senior creditor to hold that he had waived his right to the fund by a direction temporarily to defer the sale, when no waiver was intended, and when it does not appear that the property sold for any less than it would have done at an earlier sale.
In the present-ease, no injury to the junios* -creditor could have been intended, for it does not appear that Lewis knew of the plaintiffs’ execution. And it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were in fact injured in .any way. They were not delayed in making a sale. The execution of Lewis was not withdrawn, but remained in the sheriff’s hands, and he actually did sell under both executions. -So that however the law may now be in a case where a sale is made under an execution issued upon one only of several docketed judgments, no question of that sort arises here. The purchaser clearly got a title free from any lien, ®od there was nothing to prevent -the property from selling for its full value.
"W e think Lewis did not lose his right to priority of payment out of the fund.
Pa!R Oubxa'M. Judgment affirmed. As the fund is in the Court below, this opinion will be .certified in .order, Ac.