The judge's conclusion is, it seems to me, based upon a wrong premise. As a result of the historical development of the law and the interpretations given by this court to the relevant statutes, it is my opinion that when an order of seizure and sale is issued pursuant to a memorial of judgment the interest that the sheriff's deed can convey is not the judgment debtor's interest in lands at the time the sale was first advertised but the interest the judgment debtor had in lands at the time the memorial was first registered. This conclusion recognizes the doctrine of relation back of title to the registration of the memorial as applied by this court in Kerr v. Jamieson. Its basis today is s. 5 of the Memorials and Executions Act. It follows, I think, that in order to give s. 5 its necessary effect in its historical context, s. 15 must be limited to situations where an order of seizure and sale is used alone.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.