Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/636

 ERESELO V. ADAMS. �1878, then issued an execution on that judgmeût'^and placed it in the hands of the ëheriff of Marion county. ■- i �rt is claimed by English that the second execution, which was issued on his judgment on the same day that the first was returned, continued the lien which the law ga^'e upon the first, so as to eut off Kregelo's execution, which, at the- time the second of English's executions was issued and placed in the hands of the sheritf, was also in the sheriff's hands. In other words, it is claimed that if the second execution is "timely" issued, as îï is stated by some of the text writers, it operates to continue the lien which the first execution has obtained, so as to eut off an execution held by the sheriff at the time the second execution cornes tohis hands. �The. question in this case is whether that is the law under the statutes of Indianà. 2 Davis' Eev. St. § 418, p. 200; declares that "when an execution against the propertyof any person is delivered to an officer to be executed, the goods' and chattels of suehi person within the jurisdiction of the ^ffice'r shall be bound from the time of the delivery." ' �The 415ih section requires that "'the sheriff recôitiiïg'^an execution shall indorse thereori the yeax, month, day, and hour when he received it." ■ 'i �Section 453 declares that, "when any property lëviôd oû romains unsold, it shall be the duty of the sheriflj ifrhen he returns the execution, to retum the appraisement thefe^rith, stating in his retum the failure to sell, and >the cause of the failure." ' ' ' h �The 454th section declares that "the lien of the lôvy npon the property shall continue, and the clerk, unlesa otherwise directed by the plaintiff, shall forthwith issue anôth«r execu- tion, reciting the return of a former execution, the levy^ and failure to sell, and directing the sheriff to satisfy the judg- ment out of the property unsold, if the same is sufficient. If not, then out of any other property of the debtor sUbject to execution." �In this case there was no levy made on the first execution, and I have corne to the conclusion, taking ail these provisions of the laws of this state into consideration, that the second ����