
    Morris Emanuel et al. vs. Thomas Jones, use of James R. McDowell.
    All judgments Tendered prior to the 24t,h day of February, A. D. 1844, when the limitation law of that year, as well as the enrolment law, were passed, if enrolled prior to the first day of July of that year, continued liens for two years from the 24th of February, 1844 ; at the expiration of which time they ceased to be liens.
    Therefore where a judgment was obtained in 1842, an execution on which was returned nulla bona in 1843, and the judgment was enrolled in'April, 1844, and in May, 1845, another judgment in favor of a different person was rendered against the same defendant, on which, in December, 1846, execution issued, and the money was made; it was held, that this latter judgment, though never enrolled, was entitled to the money.
    In error from the circuit court of Warren county; Hon. George Coalter, judge.
    On the 24th of October, 1842, Emanuel & Barnett, for the use of Smith W. Anderson, recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Warren county against Anut S. Van Rensalaer for $204-86, upon which an execution was issued, returnable to the April term, 1843, and returned “ nulla bona" and no other execution was afterwards issued thereon. This'judgment was entered on the “judgment roll” on the 19th day of April, 1844.
    On the 19th day of May, 1845, Thomas Jones, for the use of James R. McDowell, recovered a judgment in the same court against the same defendant, for $430, but never had it enrolled.
    On the 11th day of December, 1846, an execution was issued on the Jones for the use McDowell judgment, received by the sheriff on the same day, and on the 8th day of January, 1847, levied on com, cows and calves, <fce. as the property of the defendant, which were subsequently sold under that execution. Anderson and McDowell both claimed the proceeds of the sales; the court below, upon motion, held that McDowell was entitled to them; and Anderson prosecuted this writ of error.
    
      Mason and Burwett, for plaintiff in error,
    Cited 6 S. & M. 628; and contended that by the fair construction of the enrolment and limitation laws of 1844, all judgments rendered prior to the passage of the acts, duly enrolled, after-wards retained their liens for five years.
    
      Smedes and Marshall, contra,
    Cited Tarpley v. Hamer, 9 S. & M. 310; Smith v. Ship, 1 How. (Miss.) 234; Planters' Bank v. Black, 11 S. & M. 43.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of Warren county, sued out to correct a supposed error of that court in its judgment in appropriating the proceeds of sales made under certain executions.

On the 24th day of October, 1842, Emanuel & Barnett, use, &c. obtained judgment against Tan Rensalaer. The only execution upon this judgment was returned to the court at its April term, 1843, indorsed nulla bona. The judgment was enrolled upon the 19th April, 1844.

On the 19th day of May, 1845, Jones, use, &c., obtained judgment against Tan Rensalaer. This judgment has never been enrolled. On the 11th day of December, 1846, execution was issued on the judgment of Jones, and executed, and the usees of Emanuel & Barnett, and of Jones, claimed that the proceeds should be appropriated to their judgments. The circuit court applied the money to the judgment of Jones, use, &c.

The question for determination is, was the judgment of Emanuel & Barnett a lien upon Tan Rensalaer’s property at the time of the levy and sale under the execution of the judgment of Jones'?

There is an evident incompatibility between the 11th section of the enrolment law, and the 13th section of the limitation law of 1844, both of which acts were passed upon the same day, — the 24th of February, 1844. There seems to be but one mode of attempting to reconcile them, and that is not fully satisfactory. It is to consider the enrolment law as determining theco'n-ditions upon which the lien can alone accrue, and the limitation as determining the duration of that lien; for the main scope of the former act is directed to the first object, and that of the latter act to the last. All judgments, then, rendered befor'e February 24th, 1844, would be entitled to a lien for two years from that date, if enrolled on or before the first day of July, 1844. Tried by this rule, the lien of the judgment of Emanuel & Barnett, use, &c. had expired by limitation of law at the time of the levy and sale under the execution of the judgment of Jones, use, &c.

In the case of Planters’ Bank of Tennessee v. Black, et al., we remarked that the act of 1846,” [entitled “ An act to settle the construction of the 13th section of an act, entitled an act to amend the several acts of limitation, approved February 24, 1844.” — Laws of 1846, p. 159,] “ recognizes the 13th section of the limitation law of 1844 as one existing and in force. To this extent it must be considered valid, whether in its other terms it enacts a new provision, or merely furnishes a rule of construction. It has regarded this 13th section as in force, and it is not for us to say now that it was repealed by implication.”

We think the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.  