|
|
|
|
|
|
|
325 COOMBS v. JORDAN.
insisting upon the presumption of satisfaction of that judgment, to
prevent its lien from being revived so as to overreach that of the
judgment of 1791, under which he claimed, unqualifiedly admitted,
that the judgment of 1787, had not been paid or in any manner
satisfied; it was held, that the lien of the first judgment remained
in full force, and bound the lands in the hands of such purchaser,
as he had not only failed to plead and rely upon the lapse of time
in opposition to it; but by acknowledging the judgment to be
unsatisfied, thereby admitted the plaintiff's right to have execution \
and consequently, the continuance of his lien, (c)
At law where the suit abates by the death of a party within the
time allowed for suing out execution, or during the continuance of
the lien, it may be revived by scire facias, so as thereby to con-
tinue the lien from the date of the judgment. And after such an
abatement, the plaintiff at law, or his representative, may come in
under a creditor's suit in equity, without reviving the suit at law
by a scire facias, and be allowed the benefit of his lien as against
the realty, from the date of the judgment, or as against the per-
sonalty from the date of the delivery of the fieri facia s to the sheriff.
As, under such circumstances, this court considers him entitled to
the benefit of his lien, without requiring him to make himself out to
be a judgment creditor by evidence, strictly speaking, and such
as he has a right then to proceed upon at law; (d) since that lien
which gave him a preference from its date not having been broken
or suspended by a presumption of satisfaction or otherwise; the
revival at law of the judgment to which it was incident, merely for
the purpose of having it established in favour of or against the
new parties would be wholly unnecessary, as all such parties, if not
then before the court, might come in under such creditors' suit, (e)
According to the English law there is no positive limitation
against a bill of revivor, or a subpoena scire facias to revive a de-
cree; yet where there had been a lapse of fifteen years, the pro-
ceedings were stayed, (f) But in Maryland it would seem to have
been long since understood, that there was a similar limitation to
the issuing of an execution upon a decree as to that of issuing ait
execution upon a judgment at law; and that no execution can
(e) Ridgely v. Gartrell, 8 H. & McH. 449; Bing. Execu. 161.~~(d) Robinson v.
Tonge, 3 P. Will, 308; Burroughs v. Elton, 11 Yes. 36; Howe v. Bant, 1 Dick.
150—(e) Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swan. 529; Clarke v. Ormonde, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep.
54. (f) Comber's case, 1 P. Will, 767.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
