DUYALL v. WATERS. 539

made, is a question of importance, and deserves to be carefully
considered.

By the common law land was not liable to be taken in execution
and sold for the payment of debts. Under a fieri facias nothing,
according to the common law, could be taken but chattels, move-
able property, the industrial fruits of the earth then growing, such
as corn, wheat, &e., or leases for years, of which the writ com-
manded the sheriff to levy the debt, by a sale, converting them
into money. The sale of all personal property passing the right
without any more solemn act than a mere delivery; a sale and
delivery, by the sheriff of such property, was held to be sufficient
in all cases to vest a complete and absolute title in the purchaser,
without any particular specification of the thing, thus taken and
sold. It was, therefore, unnecessary for the sheriff to make any
return of a fieri facias either' for his own justification, or as an
evidence of the title of the purchaser of the goods; although the
sheriff might be required to make return of such an execution, so
as to compel him to shew what he had done towards levying the
debt as commanded, and so as to enable the plaintiff, if necessary,
to proceed further against the defendant for the recovery of the
whole or the residue of his claim, (s)

By an English statute passed in the year 1285,(t) lands were
partially subjected to be taken in execution under an elegit, and
held until the debt should be levied upon a reasonable price or
extent.(u) This statute having, however, prescribed no mode of
proceeding, nor required of the sheriff any return of the execution;
it was held, that what was a reasonable price or extent could only
be ascertained by a jury; which inquisition by a jury, it was also
held, the sheriff was bound to take and return; because it materially
affected the title to the inheritance; and because, where an inquisi-
tion was thus required, it was fit and proper, that it should be
returned to enable the court to judge of its sufficiency and of die
propriety of its being placed upon the same record with the judgment
to which it was the sequel. And hence it became the established
law, that all writs of elegit, under the statute, should be returned;
and that the inquisition and return should be filed as a part of the
record of the case. Whence it is evident, that a title by efegtt must
be thus put in writing and recorded.{#)

(*) Com. Dig. tit. Execution, (C. 7,}—(I) West 2, c. 18.—(u) 2 inst. 394.—(v)
2 Inst. 396; Dyer. ca. 71, fol. 100; Fulwood's Case, 4 Co. 67; Palmer's Case, 4 Co.
74; Hoe's Case, 5 Co. 90; Underbill v. Devereux, 2 Saund. 69, note 2.