
    James C. Rupert vs. David A. J. Dantzler.
    Under the act of 24th of February, 1844, of limitations, the lien of all judgments rendered prior to its passage, ceased in two years from the passage of the act, whether enrolled or not; and it makes no difference that a levy has been made on any such judgment, before the expiration of the lien; if the levy has not been perfected by a sale before the end of the two years, the lien of the judgment is lost.
    It is the duty of the sheriff, under the enrolment law of 1841, who has levied money by sale under execution, to examine the judgment roll for the judgment having a priority of lien, if there be one, over that on which the money is made, and to apply the proceeds of the sale to that; where therefore a sheriff had made a sale in March, 1846, under a. levy made on the 5th of February, 1846, under an execution upon a judgment rendered prior to the 24th of February, 1844, and' there was enrolled a judgment against the same defendant, rendered since the 24th of February, 1844; it was held the duty of the sheriff to apply the money to the latter judgment.
    On appeal,from the circuit court of Noxubee county; Hon. A. B. Dawson, judge.
    James C. Rupert recovered a judgment on the 16th day of April, 1844, against Reuben H. Grant for 0406-74, which was enrolled on the 27th of February, 1845; an alias execution was issued thereon, and came to the sherifPs hands on the 11th of February, 1846. David A. J. Dantzler recovered judgment against the same defendant on the 20th day of October, 1840, for 0450, which was enrolled on the 6th day of June, 1844; a pluries execution was issued thereon, and was received by the sheriff on the 24th of January, 1846, which was on the 5th of February following levied on two negroes of defendant’s, which were sold for the sum of 0600. The record shows that the sum of 0826-25 was made by sale under both executions.
    On this state of facts, the sheriff moved the court for directions how to appropriate the money thus in his hands. The court directed him to pay it upon Dantzler’s judgment, and Rupert excepted and appealed.
    
      Guión and Baine, for appellant.
    
      A. W. Dabney, on same side,
    Cited Smith v. Morrison, 22 Pick. Rep. 431; People v. Supervisors of Columbia County, 10 Wend. 363; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. S. C. Rep. 311; Acts, 1844, p. 107, 108, sec. 13.
    
      George H. Foote, for appellee.
    
      W. P. and J. F. Jack, on same side.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

The matter for adjudication in this case involves the construction. of a portion of the thirteenth section of the act of 1844, entitled “ An act to amend the several acts of limitations,” which is as follows: “ That no judgment heretofore rendered in this state shall be a lien on the property of the defendant or defendants, for a longer time than two years from the passage of the act.” The act was'approved February, 24, 1844.

It is a contest between two judgment creditors, severally claiming preference of satisfaction out of a particular fund. The judgment of the appellee is prior in date and enrolment to that, of the appellant, and his execution came first to the hands of the sheriff, to wit, on the 24th day of January, 1846, and was levied on the 5th day of February, 1846, upon a portion only of the debtor’s property seized by the execution.

The circuit court directed the judgment of the appellee to be first satisfied out of the proceeds of the sales under execution, and the residue to be applied to that of the appellant. By virtue of the execution of the appellee, two slaves were levied upon, and sold at the price of $600, and the whole amount raised by the levy and sale of both executions was $826'25.

It is contended by the appellant, that as the sale under the executions did not occur until the 2d day of March, 1846, and that as at that date more than two years had expired since the passage of the above statute of limitations, the lien of the judgment of the appellee had ceased to operate, and he was not entitled to satisfaction out of the fund created by the sale under the executions.

By the ninth section of an act entitled “An act to amend an act entitled, an act to regulate the liens of judgments and decrees, approved 16th of February, 1841, and for other purposes,” passed February 24, 1844, it is enacted, “ That after a sale of any property by the sheriff or coroner on execution, before the money is paid over by him, he shall examine the “judgment roll,” to ascertain if there be any elder judgment or judgments, decree or decrees, forthcoming bonds or bonds forfeited therein, enrolled against the defendant or defendants in said execution, having a priority of lien, and if there be, he shall apply the proceeds of such sale to such elder judgments,” &c. In the case of Emanuel & Barnett, use, &c. v. Jones, use, &c., decided at this term, [ante, 473,] we held, that the judgment lien of all judgments obtained prior to the passage of the act of limitations of Feb. 24, 1844, after being enrolled, lost their judgment lien in two years from that date. Now the judgment lien of the appellee expired upon the 24th of February, 1846, his judgment having been obtained prior to the passage of the limitation law of 1844. Upon the 24th of February, 1846, the sale under the executions had not taken place, and the sale must take place within the time allotted to be covered by the lien. Hence, the judgment lien of the appellant, as between the two, was the only judgment lien binding the property, and first entitled to satisfaction. The appellee takes any surplus that may remain by virtue of his execution upon his judgment.

The judgment is reversed, and a judgment directed to be entered here, ordering the appellant’s judgment to be first satisfied out of the proceeds of .the sales under execution, and the residue to be applied to that of the appellee.  