Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/322

 302 Hj-tejits. [Ch.XII. Pt.I. Sec.V. prior to the King's charge, before liis extent came down : but if the King's extent had come before the liberate, he had charged the land whilst it was in the hands of his debtor, and then his charofe would be satisfied, as if it had been in the first feudal donation ; for nothing can hinder the King's charge, (which comes on the land as if it had been settled in the first feudal donation,) but what amounts to a precedent alienation; for so far as there is a precedent alienation, they are not the lands of his debtor, and the feudal charge is only laid on the lands of his debtor; and if such lands were not his debtor's lands, they are not subject to that charge ; and a lihei-ate in pursuance to a preceding judgment, amounts to an alienation of the land itself, before it became charged to the King." " Note also, the lien upon lands by the subject's debt came in by the statute West. 2. ; for before that, the judgment did not bind the lands ; but the King's debt bound the land before that statute. But that statute does not touch the King's pre- rogative, and therefore the King has a power to levy upon the lands notwithstanding the preceding lien by judgment ; and therefore the King may seize lands that are bound by a pre- ceding judgment, wliilst the lands are in the custody of the law on the elegit or extent, and before they are actually deli- vered out to the creditor by the liberate, as a satisfaction of his debt ; but when they were actually delivered out to the creditor by the liberate, they then no longer belonged to the debtor ; since the King's writ had delivered them over for satisfaction of a debt that was precedent to the King's : for the creditor did not take them under the burthen of the King's debt, because his lien was antecedent to the King's debt ; and it were repug- nant to construe him to take the land sub onere of the King's debt, when he took it in satisfaction of a debt precedent." It will be observed that C. B. Gilbert does not notice the provisions of the statute 33 Hen. 8. c. 89. s. Y*. which cer- tainly render the above doctrine doubtful in cases where the Crown process is issued for debts not due on outlawries, 8cc. ; but for debts originally due to the King, and where the sub- ject's judgment has been obtained, and execution commenced before the Crown suit has commenced, or its process been awarded. This has been already considered (g). (a) Ante, 289 lo 292. The