
    S. D. McGregor and J. H. Matthis, assignees of fi. fa., plaintiffs in error, vs. E. W. Matthis, defendant in fi. fa., and Martin Shelton, claimant, defendants in error.
    1. 0. sold to S. a lot of land, and tools a negotiable promissory note for the purchase money, giving to S. his bond for titles. 0. sold the note for a valuable consideration, and without recourse on himself, to F. and L. After the transfer of the note, a judgment was rendered against C., which was levied on the land : Held, That the land was not subject to the lien of the judgment.
    
      Fi. fa. and claim, in Paulding Superior Court, and decision by Judge Hammond, at the February Term, 1861.
    The facts of this case are as follows, to-wit:
    On the 6th day of March, 1858, Crumpton, one of the defendants in fi. fa., sold the land levied on, to-wit: lot No. 1287, in the third district of the third section, to the claimant, Shelton, and took Shelton’s negotiable promissory note for the purchase money, ($600 00,) to become due the 25th December, 1858, and executed to Shelton his bond for titles. On the 14th of May, 1858, Crumpton sold the note .to Elijah M. Field and Smith Lemon for a valuable consideration, and without recourse or liability over against himself. On the 21st of May, 1858, the judgment under which the land was levied on ivas rendered, and on the 27th of July, 1858, Crumpton executed a deed to Shelton for the land, and took up his bond, and after that time Shelton paid off the note in full. Shelton was a co-surety, with the assignees of the fi. fa., on the original notes, which were the foundation of the judgment and fi.fa. levied, and that judgment was rendered against the assignees as well as the other defendants, and that the assignees paid off the judgment, took control of the same, and had it levied on the land.
    Upon this state of facts, agreed to by the counsel of the parties, the presiding Judge decided that the land was not subject to the lien of the judgment, and that decision is the error alleged.
    Geo. N. Lester, for plaintiffs in error.
    "W. W. & H. F. Merrell, contra.
    
   By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

From the time that Crumpton transferred the note to Fi.eld and Lemon, he ceased to have any interest in the land, (Tompkins vs. Williams, 19th Ga. Reports, 569,) and the deed being executed to Shelton afterwards, can make no difference. In the case of Ware ?against Jackson, (19th Georgia Reports, 452,) one of the Court who gave the majority opinion in that case, said, “ Had the note been transferred by Baker, (the vendor,) for a valuable consideration, to a bona fide holder, the case would have been different.” Indeed, in the case supposed, the Court would doubtless have been concurrent. That is this case'.

Let the judgment be affirmed.  