|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TESSIER v. WYSE. 39
tem a feudatory was not permitted to alien the land so held by
him, but was bound as tenant to render certain services to the king
for the benefit of the public; and therefore it was held to be con-
trary to the nature of the tenant's holding, and prejudicial to the
government, as interfering with the public revenue, to suffer the
land to be taken in execution and sold for the payment of his
debts; and also, because, looking to the inalienable nature of his
real estate, it could not be presumed, that he had been trusted by
his creditors any further than with a view to his personal estate.
These reasons, it is obvious, ceased when the principles of the
feudal system were so far relaxed as to allow to the fee simple
owner of land, an absolute and unqualified right of alienation at
his pleasure; nevertheless, the exemption was continued in full
force, (h) But apart from these reasons for exempting land from
being taken in execution, derived from the feudal system, it is
said, that a creditor was not, by the common law, permitted to
take away, by execution, the possession of his debtor's lands; be-
cause it would hinder him from following his husbandry and tillage
which are so beneficial to the commonwealth, (i) This being a
reason for the exemption derived from the nature of things, applies
as forcibly now and here as at any former time or other place.
And although it may be admitted to be by no means a sufficient
cause for a total exemption of lands from being taken in execution;
yet it is certainly reasonable, that lands should not be so levied
upon and sold as materially to interrupt their cultivation, or endan-
ger the loss of a then growing crop, (j)
In England, the common law was, in this respect, so far altered
as to allow the lands of a debtor to be taken under an elegit or
otherwise, and delivered to the creditor at an extended, or esti-
mated annual value, until the whole debt was paid. Those English
statutes were introduced and practiced under in Maryland; but
none of them authorized the selling of lands so taken in execution
in like manner as personal property, (k) In all cases, where,
according to those English statutes, lands might be taken in exe-
cution and extended, the judgment gave to the plaintiff a general
lien upon such lands as the defendant then held, or at any time
(h) 3 Blac. Com. 418, 420.—(t) 2 Inst. 394.—(j) Rawlings v. Carroll, 1 Bland,
76, note; Dorsey v. Campbell, 1 Bland, 365; Swan v. Swan, 3 Exch. Rep. 443,—
(k) 11 Ed. 1; 13 Ed. 1, c. 18; 13 Ed. 3, stat. 3; 27 Ed. 3, c. 8 and 9; 36 Ed. 3,
c.7; 23 Hen. 8, c, 6; 2 Inst. 394; 3 Blac. Com. 418, 420; Kilty Rep. 143 144,
151; 1715, ch. 23, s. 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
