HODGES v. MULLIKIN. 515

The defendant Benjamin Mullikin, on the 18th of November,
1828, filed a bill in the nature of a bill of review on oath, against
Thomas Harwood of Ben., Richard Duckett executor of Daniel Clark,
and others; in which, after reciting the various newly discovered facts
and circumstances, upon which he had founded his claim to have the
decree of the 2d of May 1825 reviewed and corrected, he stated, that
the creditors for whose benefit the deed of the 7th of April 1810 was
made, have a lien on the property conveyed prior to that of those
who now claim as assignees of Hodges, &c. &c. To this bill the
defendants put in their answers; and by consent, on the 20th of
August 1829, a decree was passed, directing the property to be
sold, and it was sold accordingly: and the sale having been finally
ratified, the auditor reported a distribution of the proceeds; to
which exceptions were filed, and the case was submitted on notes
by the solicitors of the exceptant.

16th August, 1831.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The voucher of the
State's claim is evidently imperfect. The lien of the State com-
mences with the institution of the suit, not merely with the date
of the judgment ;(t) and therefore if the State has obtained these
judgments, of the 13th of April 1812, on suits instituted before
the 7th of April 1810, the State must have a preference over the
creditors under the deed of that date. And, if both of the State's
judgments were in suits instituted since that time, then it ought to
be shewn for which the late Benjamin Harwood was liable, on his
bond, as surety for the defendant Thomas Harwood of Ben.;
because it is onry for that amount the State can claim under
the deed of the 7th of April 1810. Therefore it is ordered, that
this case stand over with leave to explain and perfect the voucher
of the State's claim; and that a copy of this order be sent by
mail to the attorney general.

The voucher of the State's claim was corrected, by which it
was shewn, that the State was entitled to a prior lien, which was
allowed accordingly.

(t) Jones v. Jones, ante, 443.