Case ID: wright_1/html/0458-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STUBLE AND DALRYMPLE v. WALPOLE.
    Judgment lien — discharged by arrest on ca. sa. — sale on junior judgment— lien of appealed judgment.
    A judgment lien upon land is discharged upon the arrest of the defendants on a ca. sa. and if to release their bodies they turn out particular land under the statute, that does not revive the general lien of the judgment.
    A levy upon a junior judgment subject to the lien of a prior one is good; and! if a sale be made, the purchaser takes subject to that encumbrance, and if it be afterwards discharged, he holds the estate discharged of the lien.
    Where a decree is rendered, in the Court of Common Pleas, on which an appeal; is taken and the same decree rendered, the lien of the decree attaches at the-date of that in the Common Pleas.
    An order of the Common Pleas setting aside a levy and sale on a junior judgment, and reviving the lien of the judgment discharged by arrest on the ca. sa. is erroneous.
    Certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas to reverse an order of that court setting aside a levy and sale on execution. The ¡flain448] * tiffs in error recovered a judgment against Tallmadgo and Beers, in October, 1831, levied an execution the same month upon the east part of one hundred acres of land, which was appraised and sold to one Warden.
    Walpole had a decree against the same persons for costs in the Court of Common Pleas in May, 1831, which was appealed to the-Supreme Court, and the same decree rendered there, in October, 1831. Upon this decree a ca. sa. issued, and the defendants were arrested; but to release their bodies under the statute, in November, 1831, turned out upon the execution thirty acres on the west side of the same one hundred acres levied on by Stuble and Dalrymple, and were discharged from custody.
    Walpole had also a judgment, recovered on the 9th of September, 1826, on which an execution issued and was levied upon land. In September, 1829, the court at his instance set aside this levy, and he issued a new execution to Coshocton, which was stayed by injunction till October, 1831, when the bill was dismissed and a. decree rendered for costs. In January, 1832, he took out another execution on the enjoined judgment, and levied upon the land -which had been before taken and sold to Warden. Application was made by Walpole to the Court of Common Pleas, who on this state of facts, determined that Walpole had a prior lien, and thereupon set aside the sale to Warden, and the levy in behalf of the plaintiffs in error.
   BY THE COURT.

The lien of Walpole’s decree was at an end when he arrested the bodies of the defendants on the ca. sa. and was subsequently attached to the thirty acres, another part of the one hundred acre tract. The judgment of Walpole of 1826, and the levy, bound the. land in dispute, until September, 182V, when the year expired from its date. The decree for costs, which followed the dismissal of the bill of injunction in chancery, did not revive the lien of the judgment. The lien was gone before the bill was filed, and was not affected by it. The decree for costs was a lien from its rendition in the Common Pleas, until discharged by the arrest on the ca. sa. If there were liens on the land prior to that of Stuble and Dalrymple, they still had a right to levy subject to them, and to sell, and if the other liens were afterwards discharged the purchaser would hold the estate. Such is the case here. Walpole’s decree, the only lien when Stuble and Dalrymple levied, was discharged. The order of the Common Pleas was, therefore, erroneous, and is reversed, with costs.

[Levy on part of land a loss of preference as to rest; Walpole v. Ink, 9 O. 142, 144.]