636 CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 BLAND.

by these plaintiffs, or by any other creditor corning in under that
decree.

But Oliver insists upon a right to have his claim first satisfied
out of these proceeds, on the ground, that his lien upon them is
prior to that of Carroll 's.

These defendants Love, Slye, and the Barbers, obtained their
judgments against the Cape Sable Company in Baltimore County
Court at its March Term of 1822; and Carroll now claims as the
assignee of those judgments. But it appears, that executions were
issued, on the 2d of September, 1822, on those judgments, and
returned nulla bona to that Court; after which writs of fieri facias
were issued returnable to April Term, 1823, of Anne Arundel
County Court. And then, after more than one year had elapsed,
without any further proceedings being had, by a writing, filed
on the first of June, 1824, it was agreed, that writs of execution
should be issued out of Anne Arundel County Court, without any
steps being taken to revive them; and on the same day executions
were issued accordingly, and levied on the property of the Cape
Sable Company, which were stayed by the injunction in this case.
Immediately after which, on the 4th day of the same month, Car-
roll instituted actions of debt on those same judgments, and ob-
tained judgments by confession on the same day.

Whence it is clear that as no execution could then have been
issued on the four original judgments of 1822; the lien which they
gave had expired, and was barred by the common law limitation
660 *and presumption of satisfaction on the 26th of May. 1824,
when the lien arising from Oliver's judgment attached.
And, therefore, as I have shewn upon a former occasion, Coombs
v. Jordan, ante, 284, the lien of those judgments held by Carroll,
could not have been so revived, even by a scire facias, much less
by a mere agreement between the parties to them, as to overreach
that lien of Oliver's judgment, which had, in the interval, fastened
upon the real estate of the defendant. Taking it for granted then,
that all the proceedings of Anne Arundel County Court, upon
those four judgments, held by Carroll, were in every respect regu-
lar and valid, still Oliver's lien is entitled to a preference in satis-
faction. But, notwithstanding what Carroll has said in his answer,
the lien arising from his judgments of Anne Arundel County Court,
was virtually relinquished by him, by the institution of the suits
and the judgments obtained by him in Baltimore County Court,
on the 4th of June, 1824; and, consequently, upon this ground
also, Oliver's judgment must be respected as a prior lien to that
arising from those held by Carroll, and must be allowed a prefer-
ence in satisfaction accordingly.

It is here proper, however, to recollect, that the Act of Assembly
which enlarges the time within which a fieri facias may be issued
on a judgment to three years; and, consequently, so far prolongs