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

from the jurisdiction of the County Court in which the judgment
had been obtained. And therefore, it is sufficiently clear, that
this law, which was intended to meet a peculiar and extraordinary
state of things, cannot be considered as having prescribed any
regular course of proceeding whereby the lands of a debtor might
be made liable to be taken in execution. And besides it must be
borne in mind, that the statute subjecting lands to be taken in
execution by a fieri facias, did not pass until the year 1732; 5 Geo.
2, c. 7; that at that time lands could only be taken in execution
by a writ of elegit; and that this Act specifies ouly such execu-
tions as could then only go against the person, or to the personal
property of the defendant. Whence it is clear, that there is noth-
ing in this law which can be considered as having so enlarged the
the force of a judgment of a County Court, as to render any
lands liable to be taken in execution under it winch were not
liable before: and consequently, it gave no hen upon any lands of
the defendant lying beyond the jurisdiction of such County Court.

By an Act of Assembly, passed during the Revolution, it is de-
clared, that the clerk of a County Court shall, on application, of
the plaintiff in any judgment of his Court, issue execution against
any defendant who hath removed from the county in which such
judgment is had to another county; which execution shall be
directed to and served by the sheriff of the county where such
defendant may reside, and returned to the Court of that county;
and it shall be sufficient for the plaintiff to entitle himself to the
benefit of such execution to produce before the Court to which the
same shall be returnable, a short copy of his judgment attested

by the clerk. October, 1777. ch. 12, s. 3. I

The course of proceeding prescribed by this Act does, in like
* manner, altogether depend upon the movement of the de-
667 fendant; and his thus, of himself, laying that foundation of
fact which alone can authorize a plaintiff to proceed in the man-
ner pointed out by it. Harden v. Moores, 7 H. & J. 4. But, as at
this time lands were liable to be taken in execution under a fieri
facias; and as this Act authorizes a plaintiff, in such manner, to
sue out any kind of execution he may think proper, it may be con-
sidered, that such a judgment would give rise to a lien upon the
lands of the defendant, lying in the county to which he had re-
removed, from the time of his having become a resident of it, as
well as upon all his lands lying within the jurisdiction of the
County Court of that county in which the judgment had been ren-
dered. But although it might be so held, in regard to the lands
of the defendant lying within those two counties; yet, as, under
this Act. no execution could be sent to any other county, the judg-
ment could not therefore, operate as a lien upon any lands of the
defendant lying elsewhere.