Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-11-25

Plaintiff principally relied, we'e the following:
Ib,t as the ,fftc CT and operation OF Judg-
m.nts. in the Courts Of the Uni,ed States, are
no, determined by any general law OF Con-
press. they mus, Of necessity, depend upon
me law. of the respective S,aes; and conse-
oueu,ly. as by the law Of his S'ae, The ]ndg'
men,x of its Conr,s of Record are lien;
same eff.c, must be attributed to those OF The
courts Of the Uitrd <S,a'es:
That. by the l4;h section Of The Judiciary
ac, of 1889, thu Cour; was expressly author
ised 20 issue any execution which was IN con-
formity TO the principles and usages OF law u"
this S a'e anG that the ex cu'i'n trayed ior'
being OF that character, nigh be lawfully is
sued:
That by the Process Acts Of 1899 and 1872,
Congress hld adopted not only ne form, "o'
the effect Of cxecu ions, from h. State courts;
+ and that unless me execution prayed Tor shouIu
relate 20, ami embrace all, the lands, OF which
Mr.. Bar ard WIS st zed at the time OF he Judg'
men would not be the sam, ri'her IN form
or fleet, as If issued from slate Court:
Thar expires. words were not necessary 10
render iudgm,D, a lien but by making the
-1ecu ION re- ale TO he lime OF The judgment
given, or dotkeed, such lien wss created
! by Necessary implication
| That the docke ing Of judgment Was pro
eecdlng in The sui; and as such, was sdopr d
and directed by The general terms OF the Pro-
cess Ac, Of 1902; and 'ha, a! any rate the
Court had the power 20 NIKE il a pant OF heir
| own practice and that the usage which had
prev allied for more than thirty years, was cvi
dence Of that practice:
| And, finally, that il being admitted that Con.
gress had adopted thai port of the law OF the
State, BY which lands arc made liable 10 be
! sold under execution, II was 4 fair IT not nrcrs
sary inference, thot they had also adopted those
provisions VI he Stalule. by which the lands
SO liable, are de signa,edsi il he rule, fur
ni,hedby the statute, be departed from, no other
can De resorted 10, for ascettaiuing tie lands IL
which the execution can be applied.
On subsequent day The Counsel for the
Plain if also conlended that al Common law
Judgments lien upon lands not ouly from,
the time it is given, but, by relation. from The
FIRST day Of The Term in which il is rendered
and number OF ancien, authorities were cited
in support Of this position. The writ Of Leva
ri Fdt,as was mentioned as a common law tx
ecurion, which by affecting the Ienls and prof
u.s. rendered il necessary 10 ascertain, by some
general rule, the lanes to which il was 10 be
applied
| On Thursday the 10Th inst. Judge Thomp.
son delivered The opinion Of the Court, declar
ing that judgments in the United States Cir.
cult and District Courts in IhIs State, are a
lien upon lands as against subsequen, purchas'
ers, from the time that they are regularly
dock according TO the practice Of those
Courts, and that the usage Of doeketing those
jud gmen's, which has prevailed since The year
| 1895. is snffieien, and conclusive evidence Il
the practice Of the Courts, although no written
rule is found, by which i, was originally aatho-
| rized.
The plea Of the defrndsn, was therefore over,
ruled, and judgment given for tn. plaintiff, on
the demurrer that the execution prayed Tor
should issue.
Ills stated by Judge Thompson ,ha, the OPT.
| MON Of The Cour' in ex,enso, would be reduced
to writing, and delivered to the Cle'k for the
information and use of The Bar.
I, is understood that the learned couosel for
the defendant acqu,esce in The opinion Of the
Court, so that this important question may now
be regarded as dehni,i,"ly settled.