HODGES v. MULLIKIN.—1 BLAND. 485

whereby he shall make all the parties to the said decree parties to
the said bill, together with the creditors, or their legal representa-
tives, who are named in the said deed of the 7th of April, 1810, in
such a manner as to bring the interests of all the said parties, in
the property mentioned in the said deed, fully before the Court.
And it is further ordered, that the said Benjamin Mullikin pay
unto the said plaintiff all the costs which have accrued upon his,
the said Mullikin's, said petition, including this order, to be taxed
by the register.

* The defendant Benjamin Mullikin, on the 18th of Novem-
ber, 1828, filed a bill in the nature of a bill of review on oath, 515
against Thomas Harwood of Ben., Richard Duckett, executor of
Daniel Clark, and others, in which, after reciting the various
newly discovered facts and circumstances, upon which he had
founded his claim to have the decree of the 2d of May, 1825, re-
viewed and corrected, he stated, that the creditors for whose bene-
fit the deed of the 7th of April, 1810, was made, have a lien on
the property conveyed prior to that of those who now claim as
assignee of Hodges, &c. &c. To this bill the defendants put in
their answers; and by consent, on the 20th of August, 1829, a de-
cree was passed, directing the property to be sold, and it was sold
accordingly: and the sale having been finally ratified, the auditor
reported a distribution of the proceeds; to which exceptions were
filed, and the case was submitted on notes by the solicitors of the
exceptant.

BLAND, C., 16th August, 1831.—The voucher of the State's
claim is evidently imperfect. The lien of the State commences
with institution of the suit, not merely with the date of the judg-
ment; Jones v. Jones, ante., 443; and therefore if the State has
obtained these judgments, of the 13th of April, 1812, on suits insti-
tuted before the 7th of April, 1810, the State must have a prefer-
ence over the creditors under the deed of that date. And, if both
of the State's judgments were in suits instituted since that time,
then it ought to be shewn for which the late Benjamin Harwood
was liable, on his bond, as surety for the defendant Thomas Har-
wood of Ben.; because it is only for that amount the State can
claim under the deed of the 7th of April, 1810. Therefore it is
ordered, that this case stand over with the leave to explain and
perfect the voucher of the State's claim; and that a copy of this
order be sent by mail to the Attorney-General.

The voucher of the State's claim was corrected, by which it was
shewn, that the State was entitled to a prior lien, which was al-
lowed accordingly.