Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/285

 PENCE V. OOCHRAN. 273 �cution to be levied on the same land on December 23, 1826. It does not appear from the statement of faets, or from the opinion of the court, whether execution had been issued upon the judgment in favor of the Lebanon Banking Company, and levied within the year upon other lands of the defend- ants than the tract, the proceeds of whichwere in dispute. I thereupon sent to the clerk of Warren county to asoertain whether the records in the common pleas or supreme court of the county showed whether such levy had been made,. and he forwarded me the original papers in the' case in tho supreme court. The record upon whioh the certiorari was granted, and upon which the case was disposed of by the supreme court, contains an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that execution had been issued upon the judgment in iavor of the Lebanon Banking Company, and had been levied within the year upon other property than that in dispute, and that this lety was made before the levy of the execution upon the judgment in favor of the Bank of the United States had been levied upon the property in dis- pute. The court of common pleas ordered the proceeds to be paid to the assignees of the Lebanon Bank, on the supposi- tion that they had the oldest and best lien ; and the fourth assignment of error in the case in the supreme court was "because the execution issued on the judgment in favor of the Lebanon Bank, and on which the levy was made on said premises, the proceeds of which are the subject of dispute in this case, was irregular, it appearing that the property levied upon under a prier execution issued on said judgment re- mained undisposed of at the time of issuiag of said execu- tion on which the levy was made upon the premises sold belonging to said defendant Ferguson, and from the sale of which the money in dispute was made;" and the fifth assignment of error was "because the lien of the judgment of the Lebanon Bank on any other property than such as was then levied upon, if it was not absolutely discharged, and ren- dered void by said attachment, was lost, under the operation of the execution laws of 1822, in having the premises then levied upon offered for sale as the law directed, and the levy v.6,no.3— 18 ��� �