JONES v. JONES.—1 BLAND. 421

McH. 125; Murray v. Ridley, 3 H. & McH. 171. (b); and it has
been expressly declared, that all lands and tenements belonging
to any public debtor, after the commencement * of suit
against him, shall be liable to execution in whatever hands 447

(b) BIRCHFIELD FOE THE KING v. BROWN.—This bill was filed in the year
1713 by Maurice Birchfield, surveyor-general of the southern district of
America, for and on behalf of the king against Joseph Brown, Margaret
Brown, Richard Bennett and Richard Smith, the representatives and debtors
of Peregrine Brown, late of London, merchant, to recover a debt due from
the deceased to the crown. The case standing ready for hearing was
brought before the Court.

HART, C., 9th October. 1716.—Decreed, that the several tracts of land
hereafter mentioned be sold towards satisfying and paying his sacred ma-
jesty King George the debt in the bill mentioned to be due from the de-
ceased Peregrine Brown; and that the sale may be made to the best advan-
tage, notice be given of such sale to begin the 2&th day of April next, and
to continue till the 20th of May following. And that every purchaser of
the same, or any part thereof, shall have, hold, and enjoy the same to him, or
them, by a good and perfect estate in fee simple, in such manner as if the said
Peregrine Brown had conveyed the same according to the exigence of the
law, viz: Turkey Point, one thousand acres in Cecil County, &c. &o.

After which the case was again brought before the Court under other cir-
cumstances.

HART, C., 3d September, 1717.—Ordered, that the persons discovered to be
debtors to the estate of Peregrine Brown, deceased, particularly James Frisby
and Peter Carmack, be made parties to the bill filed in this Court by Maurice
Birchfield on behalf of the crown against Joseph and Margaret Brown and
others. And that the personal estate and several debts due to Peregrine
Brown, and mentioned in the answer of Richard Bennett and Joseph Brown,
be liable to the demand of the crown in such manner as they would be to
Peregrine Brown.

Some time after Peter Carmack, who, with others, had. by a separate bill,
been made a party, put in his answer thereto, In which, among other things,
he stated, that the matter in controversy had been referred to the arbitra-
tion of certain persons, who had made an award thereupon discharging him;
upon which award he relied.

TILGHMAN, C., 13th July. 1723.—It seems, that Maurice Birchfield nego-
tiated the affair with Carraack, by way of arbitration, and was fully ap-
prised of the state of the accounts betwixt Brown and Carmack, and seemed
well satisfied therewith and with the award, and that Peregrine Brown was
considerably in his, the said Carmack's, debt. And it also seems, that Birch-
field sues not in such manner as to entitle himself to the advantages due to
the prerogative, nor agreeable to the statute of the thirty-third of Henry
the eighth, chapter thirty-ninth, but rather as a common person, or assignee
of a common person. It is therefore adjudged, ordered, and decreed, that
the bill of complaint of the said Maurice Birchfield be dismissed, and that
the said Maurice satisfy and pay unto the said Peter Carmack, —— pounds
of tobacco for his costs sustained by reason of his unjust vexation in this