Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/614

 600 FBDBBAIi EEPOBTEE. �Cocice, Veok.E. Se-, 1 Sug. Vend. 660; 2Tidd, Pr. 1035, 1004; 5 Bac. Ab. title, "Cases," 433; Watson, Sheriff, 207. In Evans v. Roherts, 5 Barn & Cress, 828, (S. G. 11, E. 0. L. 701,) it is said that in the English statute of frauds the words "lands, tenements, and hereditaments" were iised to denote a fee-simple, and the words "any interest in or con- cerning them," to denote a chattel interest, or any interest less than fee-simple. These are almost the words of section 51 of the Tennessee Code. �It will be found, in examining the subject, that ever since lands in the colonies were subjected to execution there has been, partienlarly in the colonial and earlier state legislation, a disposition to assimilate leaseholds, at least for long terms, to real estate. The courts Bometimes construed the words "real estate" and "lands" to include them, but generally it was beld those words did not. Many of the states have, by statute, made them real estate, and there is nothing novel in so treating them. This section of the Code, in my opinion, was intended especially to make leaseholds subject to the incidents of real estate where the statute does not otherwise particularly direct. The case of The People v. Westervclt, 17 Wend. 674; S. G. 20 Wend. 416; and Putnam v. Westcott, 19 J. K. 73; and the cases cited in Freeman on Executions, § 119, and other text writers, — show the growth of legislation and judieial decision in this direction of making leaseholds real estate. �In Barr v. Graves, 11 Central Law Journal, 471, the supreme court of Tennessee held that a leasehold, with its machinery aùd fixtures for cleaning cotton, could be seized under attachment without going on the premises or taking possession of the property. It is true, the attach- ment was to enforce a statutory mechanic's lien, but the procedure would be the same, as I have endeavored to show, at common law, and without any lien. Indeed, our method of selling real estate under execution finds its archetype in the common-law mode of selling a leasehold under the Jieri fadas, elegit, and levari facias. The case cites with approval Kelly V. SchulUe, 12 Heisk, 218 ; Choate V. Tighe, 10 Heisk. 621 ; and Pemberton V. King, supra. Mr. Justice Cooper was ����