472 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

debtor. It had been issued and placed in the hands of the
sheriff, but not actually levied, before the event of the death
occurred.

In this case, the statement of facts shows that the executions
were levied before the death of Harris, and unless the case of
Hanson and Barnes is to be overturned, the sheriff was fully
authorized after his death to proceed and sell the property.

Great caution has always been observed by the courts in
taking, or authorizing property to be taken, out of the hands
of a sheriff, held by him under executions, and it probably may
be safely asserted that the case of Alexander et al. vs. Ghiselin
et al., 5 Gill, 138, is the only case in which the sheriff's possess-
sion has been disturbed, unless upon some grounds affecting
the validity of the judgment, or the regularity of the process,
by virtue of which the seizure was made.

But the case of Alexander vs. Ghiselin was confessedly de-
cided upon the special terms of the act of 1805, ch. 110, sec.
7, the true construction of which, the court said, required the
trustee of the insolvent to take into his possession all the estate
and effects to which he had a right of .possession at the time
of his application, and to sell and dispose of all his property,
whether in possession, remainder or reversion, and to pay off
the liens and incumbrances thereon. Regarding an execution
as a lien on personal property only when actually levied prior
\o the insolvent's petition.

The present application, moreover, requires the court to
stretch its authority beyond even the case of Alexander and
Ghiselin. There the trustee in insolvency was decided to be
authorized to take property out of the hands of the sheriff,
though actually levied on prior to the insolvent's petition.

But in this case, the property is no longer in the hands of the
sheriff, having been before the present petition was filed, sold
by him in the due execution of his duty, and in conformity
with the process in his hands.

Even then, if the principles settled in the case of Alexander
vs. Ghiselin could be invoked in aid of these petitioners, which
is not admitted, still they stop short of warranting the relief