DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND. 553

return of a fieri facias either for his own justification, or as an evi-
dence of the title of the purchaser of the goods; although the
sheriff might be required to make return of such an execution, so
as to compel him to shew what he had done towards levying the
debt as commanded, and so as to enable the plaintiff, if necessary,
to proceed further against the defendant for the recovery of the
whole or the residue of his claim. Com. Dig. tit. Execution, (C. 7.)

By an English statute passed in the year 1285, West. 2, c. 18,
lands were partially subjected to be taken in execution under an
flegit, and held until the debt should be levied upon a reasonable price
or extent. 2 Inst. 394. This statute having, however, prescribed no
mode of proceeding, nor required of the sheriff any return of the exe-
cution; it was held, that what was a reasonable price or extent could
only be ascertained by a jury; which inquisition by a jury, it was
also held, the sheriff was bound to take and return; because it
materially affected the title to the inheritance; and because, where
an inquisition was thus required, it was fit and proper, that it
should be retained to enable the Court to judge of its sufficiency
and of the propriety of its being placed upon the same record with
the judgment, to which it was the sequel. And hence it became
the established law, that all writs of elegit, under the statute,
should be returned; and that the inquisition and return should be
filed as a part of the record of the case. Whence it is evident,
that a title by elegit must be thus put iu writing and recorded. 2
Inst. 396; Dyer Ca. 71; Pol. 100; Futwood's Case, 4 Co. 67; Pal-
mer's Case, 4 Co. 74: Hoe's Case, 5 Co. 90; Underbill v. Dervreux,
2 Saund. 09, note 2.

* This had been introduced as the law of Maryland, and
was in regular and constant operation; Kilty's Rep. 144; 590
when it was declared, by a British statute passed in the year 1732,
5 Geo. 2, c. 7, that real estates, situate in the plantations, belong-
ing to any person indebted, should be subject to the like process
for selling and disposing of the same towards the satisfaction of
debts as personal estate. This British statute appears to have
been first introduced as the law of Maryland about the year 1740.
Davidson's Lessee v. Beatty, 3 H. & McH. 012. This statute,
however, specified no mode of judicial proceeding, nor designated
any form of execution, but, like the previous English statute, under
which the proceeding by elegit had been framed, it merely declared
the rule, leaving its application to be made by the Courts of justice
in such manner and form as they deemed best.

In Maryland, for the purpose of executing and conforming to
this British statute, the writ of fieri facias was so altered as to com-
mand, that the debt should be levied of " the lands and tene-
ments, " as well as of the goods and chattels of the defendant.
And as an English statute passed in the year 1676, 29 Car. 2, c. 3,
s. 3, and which had been then adopted here, had declared, that no