SENCE W. COCHRAN. 271 �under the judgment of BroWn county, was sold by the assignee, and the proceeds, after the payment of costs, is insuffioient to pay the judgmenta of Brown coanty, of James H. Dann, and that of E. C. Moore ; and it was claimed before the reg- ister, by counsel for Browu county, that the proceeds of the sale should be directed to be paid upon that judgment ; and by counsel for Dunn and Moore, that they should be paid to them. The register decided that the proceeds should be applied — First, to the judgment of James H. Dunn; second, to that of E. C. Moore. And to this finding the county has: eicepted. �The determination of this question involves the construc- tion of the statutes of Ohio, declaring and regulating the liens of judgments, section 5375 of which provides that "such lands and tenements within the oounty where the judgnjent is entered shall be bound for the satisfaction thereof f rom the first day of the term at which judgment is rendered; but judgments by confession, and judgmenta rendered at the same term at which the action is commenced, shall bind such lands only from the day on which judgments are rendered ; and ail other landsi as well as goods and chattels, of the debtor shall be bound from the time they are seized in execution." And section 5415 provides that "no judgment on which execution is not issued and levied before the expiration of one year next after its rendition shall operate as a lien on the estate of a debtor to the prejudiee of any other bona fide creditor." These are the two sections of the statute which bear directly upon the question in this case, and which control its decision. The supreme court of the state has been several times called upon to construe and apply them ; and if we can asoertain the construction which they have given- to them, and can apply that construction to the facts of this case, we must be governed by it. Bank of U. S. v. Longworth, 1 McLean, 35. �The first case in which these sections were oonstrued is that of McCormack v. Alexander, 2 Ohio,. 66, in which it was held by the court that judgment creditors who had not sued out and levied executions within one year from the date of their judgments lost their lien and preference as against sub- ��� �
