
    TODD against M’CULLOCH
    Á fieri facias levied upon land, will not prolong the lien of the judgment upon other land, beyond the period of five ycarsl ' ' • "
    Error to, the Co,m,tt\o,q Pleas pf Mifflin county.
    This was a feigned issue in which Thomas Todd, administrator of Thomas Beale, deceased, was plaintiff; and George M’ Cxdloch was defendant, directed by the Court of Common Pleas, tp try the right to the proceeds of the sale of the real estate’ of Robert Burns, which was so,Id by the sheriff pf Mifflin co.unty.
    The material facts which gave rise to, the question of law argued, were these: Robert Burns being the owner of land in Fermanali township and also of other lands in Wayne township, judgments were, obtained against him in 1819 by the Huntingdon Bank and by Broipn and Dixon- Writs of fieri facias were issued upon thesejudgments in 1819, which were levied qpon the land in Fermanah township, upon which there was a mortgage. In 1S22, this land was spld by the Sheriff and the proceeds, applied to the, payment of the mortgage. In 1826, writs of scire fiadas were issued to revive thesejudgments, upo.n which, judgments, were obtained in 1829: — upon these two judgments the defendant claimed the money. In 1826, Thomas Beale, the plaintiffs intestate obtained a judgment against Robert Burns, upon which & fierifacias issued, which was levied upon the lands in Wayne township; and they were subsequently gold in 1827, and the proceeds brought into qourt for appropriation. This money each pf the parties to this issue claimed: and the question which was presented to the. cp.urt, was, whether the issuing of the writs of fieri facias upon the judgments of the Huntingdon Bank and Brown and Dixon, and thelevies made upon the land in Ferynanah township, would preserve the lien of those judgments upon the lands in Wayne township. The courtbelpw, was of opinion that it would, and so instructed the jury, whp accordingly, found for the. defendant.
    The same question was argued here.
    
      J. Fisher, for plaintiff in error,
    whom the co.urt declined to hear.
    
      Ruling for. defendant in error,
    argued, that the decision of the court below was fully supported by the case of- Pennock, v. M’Kissin, 13 Serg. and JRawle, 148; and the case of Betz’s Appeal, I Penn’a. Rep. 271, did not militate against the principle there established: for in the latter case, the levy was on personal property, which fact characterized that case, and it was ruled upon the’presumption of satisfaction: That in the case before the court, there was no room fop siich a presumption, nor was it alleged, That the requisitions of thp act, requiring a scire facias to issue, were for the protection qf purchasers: this is a contest between judgment creditors. .
   Per Curiam.

This cause was tried before the determination of Betz’s Appeal, 1 Penn, Rep. 271 by which it seems to have heen established, substantially if no.t in terms, that the lien of a judgment is preserved by an execution, only as regards the land leyied. Lands are chattels for payment of debts; and the lien by which they are tp be bound for more than the fiye years without a scire facias, seems to be that which the common law attributes to fin exfecutiqn rather than the lien of the judgment. At all events, it was there determined, that a levy of goods will not prolong the lien qs to Iqnd; and an the same principle a levy of ojher land can jxave no greater effect than the levy of any other chattel. The decision of the court belpw, is therefore not supported.

Judgment peyersed and a venire do. novo awarded,  