Case ID: ohio_6/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Collett, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*J. Thompson, Adm’r of R. Scoggins, v. A. Atherton.
    The judgment lien is lost, if execution is not sued out and levied within a year, as against a subsequent bona fide creditor, where execution is levied within the year.
    This case was adjourned from the county of Hamilton. It was a 
      certiorari to reverse an order of the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, distributing certain moneys, made by the sheriff, upon execution. The controversy arose upon the following state of facts:
    At March term, 1824; of the court of common pleas of Hamilton, John Thompson, as administrator of R. Scoggins, recovered a judgment against Joel Scoggins. Upon this, a writ of ft. fa. was regularly issued from term to term, the last of which was dated March 3, 1832; and, on the 14th of the same month, was levied on certain real estate of Joel Scoggins, which was legally sold, and produced two hundred and eighty-eight dollars.
    The February term of the court of common pleas, for 1832, commenced February 21st, and continued throughout the month of March. At the commencement of this term, a suit was pending in the court of common pleas, A. Atherton v. Joel Scoggins. On March 20, 1832, judgment was rendered in the suit against Scoggins. On the 10th of April, execution on this judgment was levied on the same real estate upon which Thompson’s execution was levied. Both executions were returnable to August term, 1832.
    Upon the return of these writs, that certain moneys were made, both plaintiffs claimed to have each his judgment preferred. On the motion of Atherton, the appropriation was made in his favor. Thompson took a bill of exceptions setting forth the facts, and brought this certiorari to reverse the order.
    Wade and Woodruff, for plaintiff.
    Strait and Hawes, for defendant.
   Collett, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In the case of the Urbana Bank v. Baldwin, 3 Ohio, 65, this court decided, that where a suit was pending at the commencement of a term, the judgment rendered on any subsequent day of the term related back to, and attached its lien, as of the first day of the term. In that case, Baldwin was a bona fide purchaser, after 31] the commencement of the term, but before +Mie day the judgment was confessed. The lien of the judgment was held to attach against him.

Subsequent to this adjudication, the legislature enacted the law under which this case is presented. Section 2 provides, “ that the lands and tenements of the debtor shall be bound for the satisfaction of any judgment against such debtor, from the first day of the term at which such judgment shall be rendered, in all.cases where such lands lie within the county where such judgment was entered.” 29 Ohio L. 101. Section 23 of the same statute provides, “that no judgment heretofore rendered, or that may hereafter be rendered, on which execution shall not have been taken out and, levied within one year next after the rendition of such judgment, shall operate as a lien on the estate of any debtor to the prejudice of any other bona fide judgment creditor.”

Both these provisions are but transcripts ot the statute of 1824, the construction of which has been settled by a series of decisions in this court, in the cases of Urbana Bank v. Baldwin, McCormick v. Evans, Shuey v. Ferguson, and Earnfit v. Winans. By these cases it is decided that 'the execution must be both sued out and levied within the year, or the lien is lost if brought into collision with a subsequent judgment, which is so sued out and levied. Thompson’s judgment is in this predicament. The levy is overreached by the relation back of Atherton’s judgment to the first day of the term wherein it was rendered. The construction of the statute of 1824 was settled upon careful deliberation. By reenacting its provisions, the legislature have sanctioned that construction, and it must be adhered to. The order is affirmed.