LANT V. GUNN. 755 �tion with Iiowell C, Woolfolk; and that for this reason such land was not equally accessible to the lien of petitioners' judgment. �After the decision of the supreme court was rendered, (94 U. S. 654,) complainants amended their bill, allegingthat in the argument of the case before the circuit court it was treated as an midisputed fact that the judgment in favor of Gunn had never been "recorded as required by law," aithough the transcript of the record from Bibb superior court ofEered in evidence before the circuit court, and in the record before the supreme court, contained, interalia, the judgWent, followed by a certificate from the clerk of the superior court that the same "appeared from the records and files of his office," and that in faet said judgment never had been entered on the book which the clerk of the superior court is required (by section 267, T[ 6, of the Gode of Georgia) to keep for the "record of all the proceedings in all civil cases within six months after the final determination thereof." �The amendment further alleged that in the year 1880 the committee of creditors in charge of the estate of James H. Woolfolk had recovered from Lowell 0. Woolfolk the large tract of land in Jones county conveyed to him by James H. Woolfolk, and had sold the same as assets of the bankrupt's estate for the sum of $16,700, and' that this fund, together with the sum of $1,000 already in the hands of the trustee from other sources, was suffioient to pay off the entire judgment in favor of Gunn, and that this judgment ought in equity to be paid out of that fand upon which it had a lien, and leave to complainants' mortgage the fund upon which only it had a lien. The amendment also alleged that large payment» had been made on the execution and judgment in favor of Gunn, which should be applied solely in reduction of the prin- cipal; such payments having been made after the date of complaifiant's ifnortgage, and the mortgage haViug been taken at a time when there was no subsisting judgment (if any valid juagment iat all) for interest; that the amended judgment foi' ihterest was not taken until 1871, ftnd oould not relate iiack t6 the original judgment in 1866, so as toafEect com- ��� �
