delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question raised by the plea tings in this cause, .and it seems to us the only one argued at its hearings in the District and Supreme Courts of Iowa, was, whether the lot, for which Levi and Thompson hád á preemption certificate, which had been entered and paid fori by them, was or was not liable to be sold upon execution'issued üpon a judgment rendered against them previous to'a patent having been issued for the land by the government of the United States’.' Their right to a preemption purchase of the lot was acquired under the act of the 2d of July, 1836, ch. 262, entitled ££ An Act for laying off the Towns of Fort Madison and Burlington, in the Coimity of Des Moines; and the Towns of. Bellevue, Dúbuqüé, and Peru, in the County of Dubuque, Territory of Wisconsin,and for other Purposes,” and under the act of the 3d of March, 1837,‘ch.' 36, amendatory of the preceding act just recited. The right of Levi and Thompson to á preemption, under those acts; is not a controverted point in. the case. Taking it for granted, then, that it had been lawfully'acquired, that they entered the land in the proper Office, and that it was paid for in their names, this'gave them the right to the register^ certificate of • purchase, to. be transmitted to the commissioner of the general' land-office, as in other, cases of the sale of public lands. The fee continues in the United States until the issue of the patent, but the right to the fee was in the purchasers, and they were entitled to a patent-for the land, unless there was some legal objection by the United States against issuing it, of which this court is not. advised..

This right to the fee ánd a patent in this case gave to Levi and Thompson that u equitable right ” to the land; üudér the certificate front the receiver of the land-office, which the law of Iowa has made subject to execution for the satisfaction of judgments. Stat. Law Ter. of Iowa, 197, January 25th, 1839.

We further remark, that the principle upon which the case of Carroll v. Safford, 3 How. 441, was decided, covers this cáse. Nor do we find any thing .in the case of Bagnell v. Broderick, or Of Wilcox v. Jackson, cited by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, or in any .other case decided by this court, which conflicts with-the decision it here gives.

We direct the decree of the court below to be affirmed.