Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/287

 FENOa V. OOCHRAN. 2f 5 �And this I8 in accordance with the decision of this court in the Bank of U. S. v. Longworth, 1 McLean, 35. In that case Justice McLean says : "Under the act of 1824, in the case of Shuee v. Ferguson, 3 Hani. (3 Ohio) 136, the supreme court decided that to continue the lien of the judgment upon any particular piece of real estate there must be a levy upon it within the year ; that a levy upon property releases ail other property net levied upon from the lien of the judgment, and that such property may be taken in execution on a junior judgment." Justice McLean f urtber says : " I confesa I entertain some doubts as to the correctness of the decision, which in effect transfers the lien from the judgment to the levy of the execution. If the lien of the judgment be limited to the property levied upon, the judgment, after the levy, has no binding force upon other real property within the county. The policy of the act seems to re(inire diligence by a judg- ment creditor, and prevents His holding a judgment over the property of the debtor so as to prevent other creditors from reaching it. But it would seem to me that the policy of the act, as well as its letter, would be carried into effect by issuing an execution on a judgment in good faith within the year, and pursuing it with diligence; that the lien of the judgment shou|d not be limited to the property levied on, but sbould continue to cover ail the real property of the defendant within the county until the money was made. The supreme court, however, has decided this question, and as their decision giv- ing a construction to the statute forms the rule of decision in this court,. I am disposed to acquiesce in the decision." �The principle of the latter cases applies to this. A levy was made under the judgment in favor of Brown county, within a year from its rendition, upon a part of the lands of the judgment debtor, but not upon the lands in controversy. The jridgments in favor of James H. Dunn and E. C. Moore were rendered more than one year after that of Browh county. Under neither of these judgmentB was a levy made, but before the expiration of the year from their rendition the defendant judgment debtor was adjudieated a banbrUpt, and bis estate passed intb the hands of an assignee ;< and the ��� �