Jackson v. Butler
Jackson v. Butler
Opinion of the Court
Though it is the main question which has been discussed by counsel, it is unnecessary
Tinder the law of February 14, 1860, although executions were regularly issued, the judgment did not operate as a lien unless a certified copy of the judgment was registered, as therein directed. But when .the certified copy of the judg- . ment is properly recorded, the statute distinctly and positively declares, that it shall operate as a lien on all of the real estate of the defendant situated in the county in which it is recorded, and shall continue in force, unless sooner r@™ leased, fop four years from and after its registration, without being reinscribed. The existence and continuance of the lien is in no way connected with or dependent upon the issuance of the execution. It continues until it is lost or expires by the limitation imposed by the statute creating it, (Muir v. Leitch, 7 Barb., 341; Love v. Harper, Humph., 113,) If the lien must be enforced by an execution, it will, of course, be
' But Jackson could not, by reason of the provision, of our probate laws, enforce his lien by an execution against Earle’s estate after his death. “ A judgment lien constitutes no property or right in the land itself.” It merely confers a right to have it sold for the discharge of such hen, to the exclusion of other adverse interests. If the owner conveys the land to another, although it is still charged with the lien, the vendor has no longer any interest in or title to it. And, as Earle had parted with all of his interest in this land before he died, neither his heirs or administrator had any title to" or claim upon-it. The lien therefore could not be enforced through the Probate Court. And certainly the judgment against Earle would not support or warrant an execution against Butler. Consequently, appellant could only enforce his lien upon the land in Butler’s hands, by suit against him for this purpose, as he sought to do in this case.
From what has been said, it is evident that appellant, looking merely to the allegations in Ms petition and amended petitions, and taking them as true, as we must do, as the case is now presented, was entitled to a lien upon the land in appellees’ .hands, for the satisfaction of his judgment when he instituted his suit, and that the lien aequired by the registration of the certified copy of • Ms judgment against Earle was not released or lost by his Failure to cause executions to issue within one year from the time when.an execution might have issued. If the lien thus acquired has been lost, abandoned, or released by anything transpiring subsequent to the institution of the suit, it is not at tMs time a matter for "our consideration.
The judgment is reversed and the. cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William Jackson v. George Butler
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Judgment lien—Statutes.—Under the act of 14th February, 1860, “to prevent judgments from becoming dormant, and to create and preserve judgment liens,” a judgment recorded 23d November, 1865, became a lien upon the lands of the defendant in the county for four years, irrespective of other acts of diligence in issuing execution, &e. 2. Same.—A judgment recorded on 23d November, 1865, was a lien upon the lands of the defendant in the county unaffected by the defendant, or by his subsequent death. Although plaintiff, after the sale by the defendant, and his death, could not enforce the lien by execution or through the Probate Court, still he could subject the land to his lien by suit in the District Court against the purchaser, if brought within four years from the record of the judgment. 3. Release of lien.—The failure to issue execution within one year after the stay laws were declared unconstitutional, was not a release of tiie lien established by the record of the judgment while the act of February 14, I860, was in force on the 23d November, 1865.