|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COOMBS v. JORDAN. 317
These several kinds of property or rights may therefore be re-
garded as other instances, in which the liability of beneficial inte-
rests in land to be taken in execution, falls short of the power of
alienation; for these, and indeed almost every species of contin-
gences may, in equity, be bound by contract for valuable considera-
tion, (o)
It was a general rule, that the legal estate only could be held
liable; and therefore, at common, no use or trust in land could be
taken in execution on a judgment against the cestui que use; nor
could any such interest be extended under an elegit; because the
statute only referred to lands according to the common law. A
statute passed in the year 1483, was the first which subjected uses
to an, execution upon a judgment; (p) which became obsolete after
the statute of 1535, for transferring uses into possession. ( q) An
act passed in the year 1503, was, however, the first which made
uses liable to be taken in execution in express terms, (r) But the
subsequent revival of uses, under the name of trusts, called for a
further interposition of the Legislature; and accordingly by the sta-
tute of frauds of 1676, pursuing the language of the statute of 1483,
as to uses in respect of trusts, it is declared, that it shall be lawful
for the officer to whom any writ shall be directed at the suit of any
person upon any judgment, to do, make, and deliver execution unto
the parties in that behalf suing of all such lands as any other per-
son shall be seised or possessed in trust for him against whom
execution is sued, (s) This provision of the statute of frauds is,
however, confined to estates of freehold or lands and tenements, and
says nothing as to trusts of chattel interests; consequently, an
equitable interest in a term for years could not be taken in execu-
tion and sold by & fieri facias. It has also been expressly decided
in England, that an equity of redemption of a term for years could
not be taken in execution by a fieri facias. And upon the same
principles it would seem necessarily to follow, that an equity of re-
demption of the freehold could not be extended under an elegit.
But, as the judgment created a lien upon the equity of redemption
of the freehold, the creditor might obtain the benefit of his judg-
ment by going into a court of equity and redeeming any prior in-
cumbrance, (t)
(o) Conrad r. The Atlantic Insurance Company, 1 Peter. 443; Wright v. Wright,
1 Ves. 409; Carleton v. Leighton, 3 Meriv. 667.—(p} 1 Rich. 3, c. - (q) 27 Hen.
8, c. 10,- (r) 19 Hen, 7, c. 15.—(s) 29 Car. 2, c. S, s. 10.—(t) Powel Mortg. 255,
309, €01; Scott v. Scholey, 8 East. 467; Metcalf v. Scholey, 3 Bos. & Pull. 461.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
