JONES VS. HANCOCK. 187

sary. Carr vs. Gott, 6 Gill & Johns; 312; Fowler vs. Lee, 10
ioid., 358.

I do not think there is anything in the delay in bringing the
case growing out of the bill filed by Price in 1830, to a close,
which should now cause this court to treat the judgment as an
invalid security, as it is quite obvious that Price might himself
have long since brought that case to an end.

I think the executors of the deceased are properly before the
court as such, and that there is evidence of the sufficiency of
the personal estate.

The running of the act of limitations was suspended by the
injunction from 1840 to 1846, and therefore the plea of the stat-
ute is no defence.

My impression, therefore, is, that here is a valid unsatisfied
judgment, and that the personal estate of the deceased debtor
is insufficient to pay him; and not seeing in the objection urged
by the defendant's counsel any reason why the court should not
pass a decree for the sale of the real estate left by the debtor,
a decree will be signed accordingly. But, for the sake of con-
venience, and to avoid conflict and confusion, this case will be
consolidated with the case upon the mortgage referred to in
the proceedings.

[No appeal was taken from this decree.]

SAMUEL JONES, JR.

vs. DECEMBER TERM, 1847.
ROBERT B. HANCOCK ET AL. 3

[MECHANICS' LIEN.]

THE law relating to the lien of mechanics and others upon buildings, only pre-
fers such lien te every other lien or incumbrance, which attached upon the

building, subsequent to the commencement of the same.
If there be liens on the property, prior to the commencement of the building

upon which the work is done, or for which the materials are found, the lien

for work and materials must be postponed to such prior incumbrance.