|
|
|
|
|
|
|
328 COOMBS v. JORDAN.
under a rule argument, should abate by the death of either of the
parties; and that the court might give judgment as if the party
were alive; and the judgment should have the same effect as if it
had been rendered in favour of, or against the deceased, (k) Ac-
cording to this law, the lien commencing with the judgment of the
county court was stayed, suspended and continued by the appeal;
and must be considered as having been finally affirmed by the
judgment of the Court of Appeals in favour of Stone & McWilliams
against Jeremiah Booth, as of June, 1825. (f) As the case could
not abate after it had reached the Court of Appeals and had been
there placed under a rule argument, the plaintiffs could not have
been expected or required to revive their judgment until after the
Court of Appeals had pronounced its decision. But after that,
although the lien then subsisted in full force; because there could
then be no laches imputed to the plaintiffs, nor then any presump-
tion that their judgment had been satisfied; (m) yet no execution
at law could have been sued out against the representatives of Booth
until the plaintiffs had made them parties to their judgment;
which, it seems, has not yet been done.
It is clear, that, since the passage of the act enlarging the time
for suing out executions on judgments, (n) there could be no pre-
sumption, that this judgment of Stone & Me Williams had been
satisfied until after the lapse of three years from June, 1825, when
it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; and consequently, their
lien remained in full force in March, 1828, when they filed their
petition in this case. That petition must, at least in equity, be
considered as in all respects equivalent to the suing out of a scire
facias to revive the judgment against the representatives of Booth;
and to entitle them to the full benefit of their lien so as to give them
a preference in satisfaction; since, under all the circumstances of
the case, it would have been utterly nugatory to have proceeded
at law, or to have attempted to obtain satisfaction of their claim in
any other way. (o) It is then clear that Stone & McWilliams,
at the time they filed their petition, had a valid and subsisting Hen
upon this equitable interest of Booth's.
Having thus disposed of the objections to the judgment of Stone
& McWilliams, it now becomes necessary to attend to the claims
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(k) 1806, ch. 90, s. 11; 1815, ch, 149, s. 5 and 6; Green v., Watkins, 6 Wheat.
2H.~~(J) Bac. Abr. tit. Abatement, F; Penoyer v. Brace, 1 Ld, Raym, 244.—(m)
Garnon's case, 5 Co. 88; Howard g, Pitt, Carth. 236; S. O. t Show. 402.—(n) 1828,
eh. 194.—(o) Robinson v. Tonge, 3 P. Will. 398; Burroughs v. Elton, 11 Ves. 36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
