
    J. H. Glanton et al., executors, plaintiffs in error, vs. Henry T. Heard et al., defendants in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    1. Judgment — Lien—Purchaser.—Under section 3535 of the Code, it is necessary that the purchaser of real property should be in the possession of the same four years, before it can be discharged from the lien of a judgment against the person from whom he purchased.
    *Judgment. Lien. Purchaser. Before Judge Wright. Troup Superior Court. May Term, 1872.
    An execution in favor of Abner Glanton, against Plenry T. Heard, was levied upon a house and lot in the town of LaGrange, in Troup county, which was claimed by F. A. Frost. The issue thus formed was submitted to the- Court upoñ the following agreed statement of facts :
    On the 1st day of October, 1859, James M. Beall sold the property levied on to Henry T. Heard, by warranty deed; Heard went into possession at the close of that year and remained in such possession until the close of the year 1862; Heard conveyed said land, on the 9th day of July, 1862, to F. A. Frost by a like deed of warranty, who paid the market value of said property. Frost, the claimant, at the time of said purchase, spoke of judgrmerits against. this property, and asked an indemnity against them; whereupon, said Heard executed and delivered to said claimant a bond of indemnity, with sufficient security, which was accepted by said Frost and recorded with his deed, of the same date, in the clerk’s office of said county. At the May term of the Superior Court of said county, in the year 1862, said Abner Glantón obtained a judgment against said Henry T. Heard for the sum of $345 00, principal, and $19 32, interest, - up to May 22d, 1862, and the sum of $13 25, costs, upon which execution, issued on the 6th day of June, 1862,. returnable to the following term of said Court, on which fi. fa. the following levy appears:
    “I have this day levied the within fi. fa. upon the following property of the defendant, to-wit: The house and lot in the city of LaGrange, whereon Isaac H. Lane now resides, containing, in all, sixty acres, more or less, this September 2d, 1866.
    I. O. Towns, Sheriff.”
    The affidavit showing the payment of taxes had been filed by the executors of the plaintiff in fi. fa., in terms of the law, and that no objection was made to the levy of the fi. fa., in *any manner. The advertisement of the property was made in terms of the law for sale, on the first Tuesday in October, 1866, when claimant filed his claim.
    ' The Court held that the property levied on was not liable to the execution, because' more than four years had elapsed from the issue of said execution to 'the date of the levy. Whereupon, plaintiffs in fi. fa. excepted.
    J. S. Walker, by A. -H; Cox, for plaintiffs in error.
    1st. The following authorities show section 3525 of the Code to be a statute of limitations: Section 3525, Irwin’s R. Code;
    section 3, Acts General Assembly 1865-6, p. 242; Bouvier’s Law Die., Title “Limitations;” opinion of Warner, J., 39 Ga., 357.
    2d. The 3d section Act 1865-6, constitutional: 7 Ga., 166; opinion of Brown, C. J., 39 Ga., 350; opinion of Warner, J., in same ease; Garnett vs. Cordell, 43 Ga., 367; Ibid., 538; Chapman vs. Akin, 39 Ga., 350; Sanders et al. vs. McAfee et al. 42 Ga.
    B. H. Hill & Sons, for defendants..
   Trippe, Judge.

From the statement of' facts agreed on by the parties, as it appears in the record, the claimant purchased- the land from Heard after the judgment had been Obtained against him, (Heard) and had not been in possession four years at the time the levy was made. Without referring to the point decided at this term in the case of Akin vs. Freeman, we simply say that, from the above facts, whether the statute on the question involved was or' was not suspended, the purchaser did not have the possession of the property a sufficient time to have <Rscharg: H it from the lien of the judgment.

Judgment reversed.  