259, 45 N. W. 1136. However, if the title to land appears of record in the name of a judgment debtor who in fact never had any interest therein, the whole equitable title being vested in a third person by reason of a resulting trust, the registry law placing judgment creditors, as against unrecorded conveyances, on the same basis as bona fide purchasers, has no application, and the judgment is not a lien on the land: School District v. Peterson, 74 Minn. 122, 73 Am. St. Rep. 337, 76 N. W. 1126.

b. Personal Property.-The lien of a judgment does not attach to personal property, but a lien arises as against such property only by virtue of an execution: Baldwin v. Johnston, 8 Ark. 260; Simpson v. Smith Sons Gin etc. Co., 75 Miss. 505, 22 South. 805; Dunham v. Cox, 10 N. J. Eq. 437, 64 Am. Dec. 460; McNamara v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 56, 28 Atl. 313; Lanning v. Carpenter, 48 N. Y. 408; Stahlman v. Watson (Tenn. Ch.), 39 S. W. 1055. And where the statutes, in a general sense, make a judgment bind all the property, both real and personal, of the person against whom it is rendered, the lien thereof, in the special sense which prevents the alienation of the property of the debtor after its rendition, attaches only to such property as is susceptible of seizure and sale under execution based upon the judgment. It does not attach to a chose in action: Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. Exchange Bank, 100 Ga. 619, 28 S. E. 393; Armour Packing Co. v. Wynn, 119 Ga. 683,

46 S. E. 865.

c. Property Partaking of the Nature of Personalty.—The lien of a judgment has been held not to attach to growing crops: Gaston v. Marengo Imp. Co., 139 Ala. 465, 36 South. 738; Planters' Bank v. Walker, 11 Miss. (3 Smedes & M.) 409; nor to the rents and profits of real estate: Fifield v. Gorton, 15 Ill. App. 458; Boggs v. Douglass, 105 Iowa, 344, 75 N. W. 185; note to Filley v. Duncan, 93 Am. Dec. 352; nor to timber cut after the rendition of the judgment: Lanning v. Carpenter, 48 N. Y. 408; nor to a parol license to mine: Blindert v. Kreiser, 81 Wis. 174, 51 N. W. 324; nor to a judgment: Gray v. McCallister, 50 Iowa, 497. An unpatented mining claim is real property to which the lien of a judgment will attach: Bradford v. Morrison (Ariz.), 86 Pac. 6; Butte Hardware Co. v. Frank, 25 Mont. 344, 65 Pac. 1. Contra, Phoenix Min. etc. Co. v. Scott, 20 Wash. 48, 54 Pac. 777. And permanent improvements erected on real estate, partaking of the character of realty, are subject to judgment liens: Lessert v. Sierbeling, 59 Neb. 309, 80 N. W. 900; note to Filley v. Duncan, 93 Am. Dec. 348. A mortgage on land is personal property, and a judgment against the mortgagee does not create a lien upon the mortgaged realty: Scott v. Mehirter, 49 Iowa, 487; Butman v. James, 34 Minn. 547, 27 N. W. 66.

d. Leasehold Estates.-The common-law theory that leasehold interests, or estates for years, are merely chattel interests to which the lien of a judgment will not attach, prevails in some states: Summerville v. Stockton Milling Co., 142 Cal. 529, 76 Pac. 243; Vredenbergh v. Morris, 1 Johns. Cas. 223; Merry v. Hallet, 2 Cow. 497; Bismark Bldg. etc. Assn. v. Bolster, 92 Pa. 123. In a majority of the states, however, judgment liens attach to leaseholds: Ives v. Beecher, 75 Conn. 564, 54 Atl. 207; Sweezy v. Jones, 65 Iowa, 272, 21 N. W. 603; Hayden v. Goppinger, 67 Iowa, 106, 24 N. W. 743; Northern Bank v. Roosa, 13 Ohio, 334; Steers v. Daniel, 2 Flipp. 310, 4 Fed. 587. In New York the lien of a judgment does not attach to a leasehold, unless the lessee or his assignee is possessed of at least five years of the unexpired term: Taylor v. Wynne, 55 Hun, 610, 8 N. Y. Supp. 759; 57 Hun, 590, 10 N. Y. Supp. 644. And in Ohio, a leasehold in the lands and water power situated on the canals and rivers owned and leased by the state are not subject to the liens of judgments: Buckingham's Exrs. v. Reeve, 19 Ohio, 399. After a leasehold has been sold on foreclosure, no lien can attach to such estate by reason of the subsequent rendition of a judgment against the lessee: Commerce Vault Co. v. Barrett, 222 Ill. 169, 113 Am. St. Rep. 382, 78 N. E..47.

e. Life Estates Curtesy and Dower.-The lien of a judgment will attach to a life estate: Verdin v. Slocum, 71 N. Y. 345; Bridge v. Ward, 35 Wis. 687. But if the estate is upon a condition subsequent, a breach thereof devests the lien: Moore v. Pitts, 53 N. Y. 85; and if it is subject to a power of sale, the lien is defeated by the exercise of such power: Leggett v. Doremus, 25 N. J. Eq. 122.

It seems doubtful whether a husband's estate by the curtesy initiate is subject to the lien of a judgment against him; but if it is, execution thereon is postponed until the death of the wife: Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427, 63 Am. Dec. 708; Lancaster County Bank v. Stauffer, 10 Pa. 398; Bankers' Loan etc. Co. v. Blair, 99 Va. 606, 86 Am. St. Rep. 914, 39 S. E. 231.

A judgment rendered against a man prior to his marriage creates a lien paramount to the right of his wife to dower; but a judgment lien attaching to his property after marriage is subordinate to her dower right: See the note to Filley v. Duncan, 93 Am. Dec. 357.

f. An Estate in Remainder or Reversion, if vested, is subject to the lien of a judgment (Real Estate Bank v. Watson, 13 Ark. 74; Bockover v. Ayres, 22 N. J. Eq. 13; Sayles v. Best, 140 N. Y. 368, 35 N. E. 636; Lawrence v. Belger, 31 Ohio St. 175; Burton v. Smith, 13 Pet. 464, 10 L. ed. 248; In re L'Hommedieu, 138 Fed. 606), or to sale under execution: Williams v. Amory, 14 Mass. 20; Brown v. Gate, 5 N. H. 416; Rickey v. Hillman, 7 N. J. L. 180; Woodgate v. Fleet, 44 N. Y. 1. In some states a contingent remainder is not

liable to sale under execution: Jackson v. Middleton, 52 Barb. 9; Watson v. Dodd, 68 N. C. 528; Allston v. State Bank, 2 Hill Eq. 235. According to the better rule, however, a judgment recovered against a debtor when he is a contingent remainderman binds his interest in the estate when it thereafter vests in him upon the happening of the contingency: Wilson v. Langhorne, 102 Va. 631, 47 S. E. 871. g. Property Held by Tenants in Common.-A judgment recovered against a tenant in common attaches to his interest in the common property. If the property is afterward partitioned by a division in kind, the lien follows and binds the portion allotted to him: Polhemus v. Empson, 27 N. J. Eq. 190; Bavington v. Clarke, 2 Penr. & W. 115, 21 Am. Dec. 432; Cumming's Appeal, 25 Pa. 268, 64 Am. Dec. 695. If the partition is by sale and division of the proceeds, the lien is preserved against his share of the fund: Eldridge v. Post, 20 Fla. 579. See, further, the note to Filley v. Duncan, 93 Am. Dec. 355.

h. Property Owned by Partnership or Its Members.-A judgment against a partner individually is a lien on his interest in the real estate of the firm, but perhaps it will be postponed to the prior equities of partnership creditors: Coster's Exrs. v. Bank of Georgia, 24 Ala. 37; Page v. Thomas, 43 Ohio St. 38, 54 Am. Rep. 788, 1 N. E. 79; Meily v. Wood, 71 Pa. 488, 10 Am. Rep. 719; Holt's Appeal, 98 Pa. 257; How v. Kane, 2 Penn. 531, 54 Am. Dec. 152. In Georgia, all the property of a judgment debtor is bound alike by the judgment, although some of it is held by him as a member of a partnership which itself needs all its property for the payment of its own debts: Dennis v. Green, 20 Ga. 386; Green v. Ross, 24 Ga. 613. In California a judgment recovered in an action on a note executed by partners jointly, but as individuals, the proceeds of which are not used for partnership purposes, is not a lien upon the firm assets, as against a subsequent judgment recovered on a partnership debt: Whelan v. Shain, 115 Cal. 326, 47 Pac. 57.

A judgment rendered against a partnership for a partnership debt is a lien on the firm real estate: In re Codding, 9 Fed. 849. It is also a lien on the individual real estate of each of the partners (Cumming's Appeal, 25 Pa. 268, 64 Am. Dec. 695; Reid v. House, 21 Tenn. (2 Humph.) 576; Pitts v. Spotts, 86 Va. 71, 9 S. E. 501), although there is a holding to the contrary in Stadler v. Allen, 44 Iowa, 198.

II. Equitable Estates and Interests.

a. In General. At the common law, and under the law as it now exists in many of the American commonwealths, a judgment does not become a lien upon an equitable title or interest in real estate: Powell v. Knox, 16 Ala. 364; People v. Irwin, 14 Cal. 428 (approved in Riley v. Nance, 97 Cal. 203, 31 Pac. 1126, 32 Pac. 315); Harvey v. West, 87 Ga. 553, 13 S. E. 693; Terrell v. Prestel, 68 Ind.

86; Truesdell v. Lehman, 47 N. J. Eq. 218, 20 Atl. 391; Sipley v. Wass, 49 N. J. Eq. 463, 24 Atl. 233; Wood v. Robinson, 22 N. Y. 564; New York Dry Dock Co. v. Stillman, 30 N. Y. 174; Dixon v. Dixon, 81 N. C. 323; Jackman v. Hallock, 1 Ohio, 318, 13 Am. Dec. 627; Baird v. Kirtland, 8 Ohio, 21; Bloomfield v. Humason, 11 Or. 229, 4 Pac. 332; Miner v. Lane, 87 Wis. 348, 57 N. W. 1105; Blackburn v. Lake Shore Traffic Co., 90 Wis. 362, 63 N. W. 289; Morsell v. Washington First Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 357, 23 L. ed. ́ 436; Brandies v. Cochrane, 112 U. S. 344, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 194, 28 L. ed. 760; Withnell v. Courtland W. Co., 25 Fed. 372. This is the doctrine affirmed by the Nebraska court in the principal case, and in Omaha Coal etc. Co. v. Suess, 54 Neb. 379, 74 N. W. 620.

In not a few jurisdictions, however, the lien of a judgment attaches to the equitable as well as the legal estate of the judgment debtor: Baldwin v. Thompson, 15 Iowa, 504; Lathrop v. Brown, 23 Iowa, 40; Kirkwood v. Koester, 11 Kan. 471; McMechen v. Marman, 21 Md. (8 Gill & J.) 57; Robinson v. Miller, 158 Pa. 177, 27 Atl. 887; In re Fair Hope North Savage Fire-Brick Co., 183 Pa. 96, 38 Atl. 519; Weaver v. Smith, 102 Tenn. 47, 50 S. W. 771. This has been held true in Illinois, notwithstanding the fact that the instru ment under which the equity arises is not recorded: Niantic Bank v. Dennis, 37 Ill. 381; Barlow v. Cooper, 109 Ill. App. 375. But in Iowa a judgment is not a lien upon an equitable interest in land in such a sense as to charge or affect a subsequent bona fide purchaser without notice: Hultz v. Zollars, 39 Iowa, 589.

Courts of equity have always regarded equitable estates and interests as subject to the liens of judgments, and have enforced them accordingly: Whitney v. Kimball, 4 Ind. 546, 58 Am. Dec. 638; Lee v. Stone, 18 Md. (5 Gill & J.) 1, 23 Am. Dec. 589; Roach v. Bennett, 24 Miss. 98; Chapron v. Cassody, 22 Tenn. (3 Humph.) 661; Haleys v. Williams, 1 Leigh, 140, 19 Am. Dec. 743; Michaux's Admr. v. Brown, 10 Gratt. 612; Freedman's Sav. etc. Co. v. Earle, 110 U. S. 710, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 226, 28 L. ed. 301.

b. The Equity of Redemption which remains in the owner of real estate after he has executed a mortgage or deed of trust thereon to secure a debt is subject to the lien of judgment thereafter recovered against him: Pahlman v. Shumway, 24 Ill. 127; Julian v. Beal, 26 Ind. 220, 89 Am. Dec. 460; Martin v. Berry, 159 Ind. 566, 64 N. E. 912; McKeithan v. Walker, 66 N. C. 95; Trimble v. Hunter, 104 N. C. 129, 10 S. E. 291; Kaston v. Storey, 47 Or. 150, 114 Am. St. Rep. 912, 80 Pac. 217; Hale v. Horne, 21 Gratt. 112. Some courts hold that a judgment at law is not a lien on land conveyed to trustees with a power of sale to secure an indebtedness of the grantor: Morsell v. First Nat. Bank, 91 U. S. 357, 23 L. ed. 436; yet they permit the judgment creditor to file a bill în equity to take an account of the debt secured and to have the land sold subject

thereto and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction of the judg. ment: Freedman's Sav. etc. Co. v. Earle, 110 U. S. 710, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 226, 28. L. ed. 301.

The rule that the lien of a judgment attaches to an equity of redemption has been applied where the right to redeem was from an equitable mortgage: Kinports v. Boynton, 120 Pa. 306, 6 Am. St. Rep. 706, 14 Atl. 135; from a deed absolute intended as a mortgage: Macauley v. Smith, 132 N. Y. 524, 30 N. E. 997 (contra Gibson v. Hough, 60 Ga. 588; Phinizy v. Clark, 62 Ga. 623; Omaha Coal etc. Co. v. Suess, 54 Neb. 379, 74 N. W. 620); from a sale for taxes: McNeill v. Carter, 57 Ark. 579, 22 S. W. 94; and from an execution sale under a prior judgment: Curtis v. Millard, 14 Iowa, 128, 81 Am. Dec. 460. It has been decided that a judgment against the owner of an equity of redemption docketed after the decree but before the sale has a lien on the surplus proceeds, but not if the docketing is after the sale: Sweet v. Jacocks, 6 Paige, 355, 31 Am. Dec. 252. And when land is sold under a trust deed, the lien of a judgment ceases as against the land and attaches to the money in the hands of the trustee after the secured debt is paid: Cook v. Dillon, 9 Iowa, 407, 74 Am. Dec. 354.

a.

III. Trust Estates and Bare Legal Title.

Naked Legal Title. It is generally conceded that the lien of a judgment does not attach to land to which the judgment debtor has only a naked legal title, unaccompanied by any beneficial interest, the equitable and beneficial title being in another. A judgment lien attaches only to the interest which the debtor has in real estate, and if he has no actual interest, though possessing the legal title, then no lien attaches: Dodd v. Bond, 88 Ga. 355, 14 S. E. 581; Hays v. Reger, 102 Ind. 524, 1 N. E. 386; Moore v. Thomas, 137 Ind. 218, 36 N. E. 712; Thomas v. Kennedy, 24 Iowa, 397, 95 Am. Dec. 740; Bucknell v. Deering, 99 Iowa, 548, 68 N. W. 825; Harrison v. Andrews, 18 Kan. 535; Peters v. Toby, 10 La. Ann. 408; Fleming v. Wilson, 92 Minn. 303, 100 N. W. 4; Rosina v. Trowbridge, 20 Nev. 105, 17 Pac. 751; Denzler v. O'Keefe, 34 N. J. Eq. 361; Lounsbury v. Purdy, 11 Barb. 490; Dalrymple v. Security Imp. Co., 11 N. Dak. 65. 88 N. W. 1033; Wright v. Franklin Bank, 59 Ohio St. 80, 51 N. E. 876; Baird v. Williams, 4 Okla. 173, 44 Pac. 217; Michael v. Knapp, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 464, 23 S. W. 280; Davenport v. Stephens, 95 Wis. 456, 70 N. W. 661; Withnell v. Courtland Wagon Co., 25 Fed. 372.

b. Title of One Acting as Mere Conduit for Conveyance.—When land passes through a judgment debtor as a mere conduit or medium of transmission, he having no interest and only a transitory or instantaneous seisin, the lien of the judgment does not attach to the land: Aicardi v. Craig, 42 Ala. 311; Atkinson v. Hancock, 67 Iowa, 452, 25 N. W. 701; O'Donnell v. Kerr, 50 How. Pr. 334; Tallman v.