The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-02-13
] An rn,,ortans opinion Of Judee

,nn,,d. nth February. 1879. United
states es. Joseph M. Humphreys et at.-.
In EQUITY. Ii. L. Lewis, United sta.es
ATTORNEY, and Henry q. SWtcknam ior
the United States, and =. Nv CHRISTIAN
for the defendants.
Huol.gs, Judqe. The very able ana IN
forming briefs Of counsel leave me nething
TO do but state the points OF the case, ant
dedilce q decision from the authorizes
which govern II.
The United States obtained a Judgment
in October, 1877, against Joseph ID. hum
nhreys. iate collector of customs at Rich-
,nond. and his sureties on his official BOND
Tn January, 1873, Humphreys executed a
deed of trust to secure money borrower,
through Thomas N. Page, on lands .oi ms
living the county OF Henrico, near she CITY
OF Richmond. 81
The United States brings it's bill In equity
In fhis court against j. III. Humphreys an
other, proper parties defendant to blect
this land to the lien OF its judgment. And
the single question in the case before the
Court Is. whether the Judgments OF higher
dignity than the trust-deed, and can De en-
forced az against the lien OF the debt Sc
cured by that deed. zee :
The contention Of the trust creditor. IS
that the United States lost its lien ana the
benefit OF its priority in time over the deea
by failing to docket its Judgment 10 pursu-
ance of the requirement OF the Sth section
Of chapter 1872 of the Code OF Virginia,
which provides that "no Judgment shall DE
a lien on real estate as against purchaser
thereof for valuable consideration without
notice. unless it is docketed" in the coun-
tv or corporation where the land lies, on
the Judgment docket required to be kept oy
the clerk OF: each county or eTo'a anna
next after the date of such Judgment or
fifteen days before the conveyance OF said
estate to the purchaser.
I shall first consider the question as II the
Judgment creditor was private creditor.
The 9th section Of the same chapter OF
The Code OF Virginia provides that "eyery
Judgment for money rendered in this State
heretofore or hereafter against any person
shall be lien on all real estate OF such per-
son." This provision was first embodied
in the Code Of 1849. Previously to that
time. and, indeed, subsequently until March
26, 1872, the writ Of elegit was in use in Vir-
ginia; but on that date that writ was finally
abolished by special act Of the Legislature.
Such being the law OF Virginia as to the
lien OF judgments in the State courts, the
next inquiry is, How does the law thus ex-
listing apply to judgments OF courts OF the
United States rendered in the State OF Viz
ginia?
It is well-settled law that judgments rem
dered in the courts OF the United States are
liens upon the defendants real estate in all
cases where similar judgments OF the State
courts are made liens by the law OF the
State. Wood ct al. as. Chamberlain Ell a..
3 Black, 430; more particularly page 43S, ct
sea. Many other decisions OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States might be cited to
the same effect. These judgments are liens,
not BIZ virtue OF the adoption OF State laws
by the United States courts, by rules Oh
court or otherwise, but by virtue OF acts OF
Congress giving the same effect TO final pro-
cess Of United States courts as is given by
State laws to process OF the courts OF the
States in which they are held; giving the
same remedies on judgments and DEGREES OF
Federal courts as are given by State laws on
judgments and DEGREES OF State courts; and
giving authority to the United States courts
to make proper rules for securing these OBJ.
iects.
We are therefore to look to acts Of Con-
gress on this subject to ascertain how far
judgments of United States courts in Vir-
ginia are liens upon lands. III there had
been no such act Of Assembly as that OF
March 20, 1872, abolishing the writ OF etegit
IN Virginia, it might probably be contended
that in Virginia the process act OF Congress
Of 1928 is not repealed by the act Of Con-
gress OF June l, 1872, now section GIG OF
the Revised Statutes Of the United States,
and that the writ of elcgit lies from the
United States courts in this State. But the
Virginia law OF March, 1872, does abolish
the etegit, and section DIG in the Revised
Statutes, giving the same effect to. and re-
NEEDLES on, judgments Of the United States
courts as were then (''now'') given by State
law to judgments Of State courts, repeats
by substitution in Virginia the process act
OF 1923 as to the etegit, whatever it may Go
in other States, under the particular legisa-
ton OF those States bearing upon this SUBJ
ject Decisions OF United States courts in
other States, seemingly in conflict with this
view, were rendered upon the condition Of
State legislation in those States, and do not
necessarily apply to the condition OF legis-
lation in Virginia.
The Judgment in this case against Hum
phreys became {; lien upon his lands
lust as it would have become if it had
been Judgment of State court; and the
remaining question is, whether by the exc
cution OF the deed OF trust which Hum:
phreys gave in January, 1878, the Judgment
{" ceased" to be a lien under the operation
Of the 967th section Of the Revised Statutes
Of the United States, which provides that
judgments Of United States courts within
State 'sball cease to be liens on real estate,
&C., in the same manner and at such periods
as judgments OF the courts OF the States
cease by law to be liens thereon"
do not doubt that so far as this law shall
operate propri0 uigore in any case-for in
stance, as q statute Of limitations 1.-The lien
of q judgment Of q United States court
would cease just as that Of State court
would do under State statute OF lmita-
ton; but l am precluded By current
OF decisions rendered by courts OF the
United States from holding that the lien
OF Judgment OF United States court
ceases in the event It is not docketed in ac-
cordance with State law as against subse-
quent purchaser without notice. am pre-
cluded from holding that the lien Of the
Judgment in this case ceased in January,
1878, as against the trustees title under the
deed Of trust executed in that month By
Humphreys.
The decisions OF the United States courts
have been in nothing more uniform, unva:
rying, and consistent than in holding that
where rights once attach under laws OF Con-
gress adopting laws Of the respective States,
these rights are not Invested by a non-com-
pliance, with conditions, restrictions, or
limitations contained in those very State
laws, where a compliance with the latter
would depend upon q resort in any way to
State officials, or to the machinery OF the
State judiciary. s. -. ia. i.s...... -.
I; The provision Of the Code OF Virginia