
    Maria Otis versus Henry Warren.
    A writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse ajudg ment of this Court before execution, ipso facto dissolves an attachment made at the commencement of the- suit..
    Of the priority of the United States, by which, in cases of the insolvency of their debtor, his effects are to be first applied to satisfy their claims.
    This was a writ of dower, dated January 23d, and served March 8, 1816.
    The tenant pleaded in bar, that at the commencement of the action, he was not tenant of the freehold, and had no right in the premises, or possession of the same; but that one Watkins and the United States were then tenants of the freehold in the premises.
    [ * 54 ] * The demandant replied, that on the 12th day of April, 1815, she demanded of Warren, the tenant, the assignment to her of her dower in the premises, and that he was then in possession thereof, claiming the same as his estate in fee simple, and continued so in possession, taking the rents and profits thereof, until the commencement of the present action.
    The tenant rejoined and traversed the allegation in the replication, that on the said 12th of April, he was in possession of the premises, claiming the same as aforesaid, or was and continued so in possession until the commencement of this action, and on this traverse issue was joined.
    At the trial of this issue, which was had before Wilde, J., at the last September term in Barnstable, the demandant read a deed from Joseph Otis, her late husband, to one William Otis, dated Oct. 9th, 1806, duly acknowledged and recorded, and conveying the premises to the said William in fee simple; also a like deed from the said William, dated Sept. 27th, 1813, conveying the premises to Warren, the tenant, in fee. She also proved a demand of her dower to be assigned, as alleged in her replication, and a refusal by the tenant; also that the tenant leased the premises in the summer of the year 1815, and received 263 dollars for the rent thereof during that year.
    On the part of the tenant, it was proved that on the 4th of March, 1811, one Watkins made an attachment on a part of the demanded premises, as the property of the said William, and that his action was duly entered and continued from term to term, until the-term of the Supreme Judicial Court, when judgment was recovered by him against the said William for damages and costs; that the said William sued out a writ of error, to reverse that judgment, returnable to the Supreme Court of the United States, no execution having issued upon the said judgment; that the judgment was reversed, and a venire facias de nova was awarded, and at the next term of this Court after the said reversal, Watkins again recovered judgment against * the said William for his [ *55 ] damages and costs, and within thirty days thereafter caused his execution to be duly extended on the lands attached upon the original writ, seisin being delivered him, and the procedings being recorded within ninety dáys after the extent.
    The tenant also proved that the United States recovered judgment against the said William, in the District Court, December term, 1815, for the sum of 2800 dollars debt, with costs of suit, on which judgment execution issued on the 6th of February, 1816, and on the 4th of March following, the same was extended on all the lauds described in the demandant’s writ, except the lands attached by Watkins and extended upon as aforesaid ; the whole proceedings in said extent being regular and according to law.
    The demandant admitted that the said William, at the time of the recovery of the judgment, and of the extent of the execution in favor of the United States, was an insolvent debtor, according to the true intent and meaning of the laws of the United States, giving them a priority over all other creditors.
    Upon these facts the judge ordered a nonsuit, with a view to settle the questions of law arising thereon; and if the whole Court should be of opinion that the demandant was not entitled to have her dower assigned in the premises, in this action, the nonsuit was to stand, otherwise the tenant was to be defaulted, and such judgment be rendered as might be considered right, the damages for the neglect of the tenant to assign the dower being agreed on in such event.
    The cause was argued by Morton, Attorney-General, and Freeman, for the demandant, and by B. Whitman, for the tenant.
   Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. The question to be tried in this action was, whether Warren was tenant of the freehold at the time dower was demanded of him, and the present suit commenced.

*The deed of ’William Otis to him, made in September, [ *56 ] 1813, conveyed the seisin, Otis having been before seised by virtue of the deed from Joseph Otis, the husband of the demandant. Warren could no otherwise disprove this seisin in himself, than by showing a conveyance from him, or a paramount title in some other. No conveyance from him is pretended ; but he sets up against his own title, the supposed title of Watkins, by a levy of an execution on a part of the land, as belonging to W. Otis, after his conveyance to Warren; and the title of the United States to the residue, by virtue of a levy to satisfy a debt due them from the same Otis. Warren had actual possession, as it appears that he received the rent for the year after the demand was made on him to assign the dower; and thus being seised in fact, he would be answerable in this suit, although other persons might have had dormant claims upon the land paramount to his, he not holding under their title.

But we see nothing in the case, which goes to defeat the title of Warren under Otis, upon the supposition that the conveyance was boná fide and for a valuable consideration; which we must presume, as the case stands before us.

Watkins’s lien by the attachment ceased after thirty days from his first judgment. The law of the United States, which gives a writ of error , provides that security shall be given; which security is a substitute for any which before existed. So that Warren’s deed from Otis, which was made and delivered before the levy of Watkins’s execution, passed the estate to Warren.

As to the claim of the United States, which has been set up in the defence, we see no ground for it. In cases of insolvency, the law of the United States provides that the debts due to the United States shall first be paid. But this is obviously confined to cases of declared insolvency, when the effects of the debtor are to be appropriated to the payment of his debts; and does not [ * 57 ] reach the case of a * prior conveyance by such debtor to a boná fide purchaser ; for no lien is created by this statute. It would be monstrous indeed, that the government should have the right to trace their debtor’s property into the hands of purchasers, and reclaim it, because the grantor or vendor was their debtor. Such a power has not been claimed by the government .

It has been suggested in the argument that, as Otis was an officer of the United States , they had a lien upon his estate for all moneys collected by him for them. But we have not been furnished with, any law of the United States in support of this suggestion ; nor have we been able to find any ourselves. The law of the United States creates a lien upon the lands and real estate of officers of the internal revenue for all debts, from the commencement of suits against them. This statute, it is apprehended, relates only to the officers of the internal revenue. But if indeed it could be supposed to comprehend all officers of the customs, it could not affect this case ; as the lien goes no farther back than the commencement of a suit for the debt by the United States; and the tenant’s title under Otis must have commenced before. The evidence in the case sufficiently maintains the issue on the part of the demandant; and according to the agreement of the parties, the nonsuit must be set aside, and the tenant must be called.

Tenant defaulted. 
      
      
        U. S. Stat. 1 Cong. 1 Sess. c. 19, § 22.
     
      
      
        U. S. Stat. 4 Cong. 1 Sess. c. 74, § 5.
     
      
      
        [Theluson & Al. vs. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396. 1 Peters, 395. —United States vs. Howland & Al. 4 Wheat. 108. —Prince vs Bartlett, 8 Cranch, 431. —United States vs. Hoot & Al. 3 Cranch, 73. —Ed.]
     
      
       He was for some years collector of the customs for the port of Barnstable.
      
     
      
      
        Stat. 5 Cong. 1 Sess. c. 88, § 15.
     