
    * Benjamin Whitman versus John E. Tyler and Others.
    In the extent of an execution on land, the three appraisers must certify, or if two only certify, a sufficient reason must be given why the third did not; if the officer appoints two of the appraisers, it must appear, from his return, that the debtor refused;—such extent must be recorded within three months to avoid a bona fide mesne conveyance of the land.
    
      Entry sur disseisin, wherein the said Whitman demands a certain messuage and land in Cambridge, counting on his own seisin within thirty years, and on a disseisin by the tenants.
    
      Joseph Enos, one of the tenants, suffered judgment to go against him by default.
    From an agreed statement of facts, upon which the action, as between the demandant and the other tenants, was referred to the determination of the Court, it appeared that the demandant claimed under a conveyance of the demanded premises made to him by one M. R. Bartlet, which was agreed to have been made bona fide, and upon an adequate and valuable consideration.
    The tenants, who were parties to the statement, claimed under three sundry executions, which had been levied upon several parcels of the demanded premises; which executions issued upon judgments rendered in favor of creditors of the said Bartlet, in suits against him wherein the said parcels had been severally attached prior to Bartlet’s deed to the demandant.
    The only questions in the cause respected the validity of the extent of the said executions respectively. The creditors in the same were Asa Ellis, Nathaniel Bridge, and Jonathan Broolcs.
    
    The objections to the extent of Ellis’s execution were two. — 1. That but two of three appraisers, who had been appointed and sworn, subscribed the appraisement of the premises extended upon ; and no reason was given why the third did not subscribe, nor did it appear whether he was present at the appraisement. 2. That the execution, with the doings thereon, had not been recorded in the registry of deeds for the county within three months, as required by statute 1783, c. 57, § 2.
    
    To the extent of Broolcs’s execution an objection was made, but not insisted on, that the description of the premises extended on was too loose and uncertain.
    *It was objected to the extent of Bridge’s execution, that the officer had selected two of the appraisers, viz., one ex officio, and the other in behalf of the debtor, without certifying that the debtor had refused, or assigning any other reason.
    
      
      Whitman pro se.
    
    
      Bigelow and Fay for the tenants.
   The Court

pronounced their opinion that the extent upon Brooks’s execution was sufficient' to enable him to hold the land set off to him thereon; and that the extent on Bridge’s execution, and on Ellis’s execution, were insufficient and void. — The demandant accordingly, having shown a good and sufficient title to the demanded premises, except that part on which Brooks’s execution was levied and extended, had judgment for his possession of the same, and for h's costs.  