Summa Counr or Petzwlvania. I59 ; Charlet Hamilton, who, in I789, was declared to have become 1792. i bankrupt, and by 'verdiél was found to be fo, from the 1 ath Feb. noaa: {788. There was a reference under the judgment. A report _ { was made on the 27th Nov. r 788, and confirmed. A Te/}.Fi. ld:. ‘ was afterwards iffued to Laneqler County, and levied on certain lands, which had been fold by Hamilton fubfequent to the judg· ‘ ment, but before his bankruptcy. On this cafe two queftions arofe: Fityf, whether thefe lands could be affeéled by the judg- ment and execution iifued after the bankruptcy? Second, whe· ther a judgment in the Supreme Court, in a caufe removed from Pbilade.Q•»l·io County Common P/ear, binds lands in Lancgfer Coun ? , it gas urged, that this was a difpute between two contending creditors, both of them having a lien, before the afi of bankruptcy. ‘ The bankruptcy, therefore, cannot affect their rights. The acl: only fays, that a judgment {hall be no lien againll: the reft of the creditors, fo as to affect them; and operates only where the claim is by the general creditors. The cafe in 1 lVmr. 737, goes on this round : K T hat the legal eftate never was vefted in the purehafer, but in the aflignees of the bankrupt, and therefore the Chancellor ordered the money unpaid to be paid into their hands." The cafe cited then is in point. This is not the eflate of Cbarlee I·L1milton that our execution is levied on. The opi- ` nion of ju{iice.Smx»1>r;u, in 1 Dall. {37I, is full to this point. As to jeeond point, the powers o the Supreme Court are the fame as thofe of the King': Beneb, 8: the lien is commen furate with its jurifiliflion. 1 Lilly Ab. 509. Cro. fac. 246. It has been the . general underlianding, that judgment in the Str/treme Court, in a __ caufe removed, bound land in all the counties of the State. ° _ "_ _ ‘ On the other fide, it was faid, that as the judgment was not it '· executed before the bankruptcy, the judgment creditor had no _ right to come againll the purchafer. If it had not been for this — purchafer, it is clear he mult have come in with the reft of the creditors; and it is not reafcnable, that he fhculd defeat the pur- chafe to benefit himfelf. So that his claim is both under, and in oppofition to, the purchafe. The diltinélion taken between legal and equitable cffates cannot bc the principle of the cafe in I’. lVmr. for the confequeuee of that would be, that he who has ` the legal ellate would be in a worfc fituation, than he who has only the equitable eitate. lt was alfo faid, that thc analogy, between the Court of King': Bench, and the Supreme Court, was not perfeé}. This is a judg- ment in a caufc remawd, which can only be tried in the county from whence it is removed, and the whole purpofe of removing is to bring the caufe before other j udgt s, and not to enlarge the effeet of the jludgment. This is illuftruted bythe liélion which authorized t e ifluing a Te}. 1*7.1%. Bclidcs, no cafe is pm- . duced
�
