Page 25

dated first of October 1838 of Lowndes Circuit Court in
favor of Roper Reese & Co against said Meyer. This defendant
admits that he was Sheriff of said County and made the
conveyance to said May, he being the highest bidder and that
marked as Exhibit (AA) which he prays to make a part
of his answer etc. This defendant say positively that the
sale was perfectly fair and legal so far as he knows or
believes, he knows of no fraud or unfairness whatever in
the sale. Admits that the land is worth more than that
sum, but the sacrifice was not greater than frequently
occurred at Sheriffs sales at the same place, but this
defendant did not desire the sacrifice nor did he in any
manner cause it, if it is to be so considered. This defendant
positively denies every charge in said bill of his being
concerned in the purchase of said land by said May at said
sale - he avery positively the said May did not buy
said land ofr him, that he did not authorise it in
any manner either by word or deed, that there was no
such thing thought of by this respondent, and he never
had the most remote idea of purchasing said lands
or any interest in them until some months afterwards,
and so far as the complainants charge that the sale on
this ground is void or voidable the same is untrue
and unjust - Respondent admits that afterwards about
the 1st of March 1841 it became his interest to purchase
said lands. and not doubting for a moment the
title of said May, he took a convey and bearing
said date, fully secured by covenants of title, which
may be more fully seen by reference to Exhibit (BB)
This Respondent further answering says that the charge in said
bill that said William R Meyer had not notice of the buy
and sale of said lands under said Executions is
wholly false, on the contrary said Meyer actually pointed
out or named the land himself to be levied upon, and was
personally cognigant of the whole matter and so also
was his said trustee R B Harrison, through whose
instrumentality the said Execution of Roper Reese & Co
was placed in the Sheriffs hands to cover the proceeds of
the sale as above stated, which this defendant then and
now deems amply sufficient under the law.

And the respondent further says that said Meyer
has not at anytime objected to or in any manner pretended