|
|
|
|
|
|
|
302 COOMBS v. JORDAN.
charged had aliened the land, bona fide, before any action brought,
the land in the hands of the purchaser was not subject to any
charge or execution. A bond is not properly an incumbrance
upon land; for it does not follow the land like a judgment. But
if an action of debt be brought against the heir upon the obliga-
tion of his ancestor, and the heir aliens the land pending the suit;
yet shall the land, which he had at the institution of the suit, be
charged; because, the action was brought against him in respect
of the land. Hence it appears, that the common law lien of a
bond creditor as against the heir, relates to the institution of the
suit and fastens on the land from that time. Consequently, where
there were two creditors, A. and B. of J. S. whose heir was
bound, and who had lands by descent. And A. brought suit and
obtained judgment by default on the first of March, 1686, upon
which he issued a general elegit against all the lands of the heir, a
moiety of which was delivered to him accordingly. And B. who
had instituted his suit on the first of July, 1684, and obtained a
special judgment against the assets confessed by the heir on the
first of September, 1686. It was held, that although B's judg-
ment was subsequent to A's, yet B's having relation to the institu-
tion of the suit, which was commenced before A. obtained his
judgment, it operated as a lien from that time, and therefore must
be first satisfied, (t)
Land in the English colonies was considered as partaking
much more than in England of the nature of mere commercial
property, (u) It is said, that there are instances of colonial estates
having been sold under the authority of the Court of Chancery of
England; according to the law of which court, where a bond or
judgment creditor was under the necessity of going into equity to
reach the real estate of his debtor, he would not be compelled, as
at law, to wait until he could, as under an elegit, obtain satisfac-
tion according to an extended value; but the court would accele-
rate the payment by ordering a sale of a moiety of the estate or so
much as might have been extended at law. (w)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(t) Co. Litt. 102; Sir William Harbert's, 3 Co. 12; Gree v. Oliver, Carth. 245;
Bac. Abr. tit. Execution, I; 2 Blac. Com. 340, n. 71; Bull. N. P. 175; 2 Harr. Eat.
680.—(n) Attorney General v. Stewart, 2 Meriv. 15$.—(w)Roberdeau v. Rous, 1
Atk. 544; Higgins v. The York Buildings Company, % Atk. 107; Kinaston 9.
Clark, 2 Atk. 206; Stonehewer v. Thompson, 2 Atk. 441; Stileman v. Ashdown, 2
Atk. 481, 609; S. C. Amb. 13; Curtis v. Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. 633; Leaby v. Dan-
cer, 12 Cond. Chan. Rep. 104.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
