48. Grant v. Bennett, 96 III. 513; Davidson v. Myers, 24 Md. 538; Eastham v. Sallis, 60 Tex.

576; 2 Freeman, Judgments, Sec. 341.

49. Noe v. Moutray, 170 III. 169 177, 48 N. E. 709; Eastham v. Sallis, 60 Tex. 576; Linn v. Patton, 10 W. Va. 187.

50. Gilman v. Hovey, 26 Mo. 280; White v. Bogart, 73 N. Y. 256; Lauffer v. Cavett, 87 Pa. St. 479.

51. Sellers v. Burk, 47 Pa. St. 344.

52. See Petray v. Howell, 20 Ark. 615; Laughlin v. Hawley, 9 Colo. 170, 11 Pac. 45; American Ins. Co. v. Gibson, 104 Ind. 336; Easterling v. Chiles, 93 Ky. 315, 20 S. W. 227; Jackson v. Jones, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 182; Adams v. Guy, 106 N. C. 275, 11 S. E. 535; the same conditions, as in the case of a judgment rendered by a state court.53

In a number of the states there is a statutory provision making a decree in equity for the payment of money a lien on land to the same extent as a judgment at law, either by an express provision to that effect, or by a general declaration that such a decree shall have the same force and effect as a legal judgment.54

The judgment must, by the law of most of the states, be docketed or recorded, in order to constitute a lien, and there is usually a further requirement that it be indexed. The statutory requirements in these respects must be strictly followed, and a failure to comply therewith will usually render the judgment nugatory as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser of the land.55 Such provisions have, however, been regarded as intended merely to protect persons without notice of the judgment, so that the failure to comply therewith will not affect the lien as against subsequent purchasers or lienors with notice of the judgment.56

White v Espey, 21 Ore. 328, 28 Pac. 71.

53. Act Aug. 1, 1888 (25 Stat. 357). See Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375, 37 L. Ed. 209.

54. Eames v. Germania Turn Verein, 74 III. 54; Raymond v. Blancgrass, 36 Mont. 449, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 976, 93 Pac. 648; Conard v. Everich, 50 Ohio St. 476, 40 Am. St. Rep. 679, 35 N. E. 58; Hohman's Appeal, 127 Pa. St. 209, 17 Atl. 902; Battle v. Bering, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 529, 27 Am. Dec. 526; Linn v. Patton, 10 W. Va. 187. In Blake v. Heyward, 1 Bailey, Eq. (S. C.) 208, it was held that the same result follow ed from a statute authorizing an execution to issue under an equity decree.

55. As to docketing, see Berry v. Reed, 73 Ind. 235; Josselyn v.

Stone, 28 Miss. 753; McMillan v. Davenport, 44 Mont. 23, 118 Pac. 756; Roll v. Rea, 57 N. J. L. 647, 32 Atl. 214; Hulbert v. Hulbert, 216 N. Y. 430, 111 N. E. 70; Sa-bin v. Kyniston, 81 Ore. 358, 159 Pac. 69; Wood v. Reynolds, 7 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 406; Reid v. McGowan, 28 S. C. 74, 5 S. E. 215; Flanagan v. Oberthier, 50 Tex. 379; Gurnee v. Johnson, 77 Va. 712; Duncan v. Custard, 24 W. Va. 730; Bush v. Faris, 30 U. S. App. 626, 71 Fed. 770, 18 C. C. A. 315. As to indexing, see Metz v. State Bank of Brownville, 7 Neb. 165; Ętna Life Ins. Co. v. Hesser, 77 Iowa, 381, 4 L. R. A. 122, 14 Am. St. Rep. 297, 42 N. W. 325; Hughes v. Lacock, 63 Miss. 112; Dewey v. Sugg, 109 N. C. 329, 14 L. R. A. 393, 13 S. E. 923; Crouse v. Murphy, 140 Pa. St. 335, 12 L.

- Lands and interests therein subject to the lien.

The lien of a judgment usually extends only to land within the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment, that is, it is ordinarily restricted to the limits of the particular county.57 In most states, however, there are statutory provisions for extending the lien to land in another county by docketing or recording therein a transcript of the judgment.58

An estate for life is subject to the lien as being "real estate" or "real property," within the statutes creating the lien.59 Whether a leasehold estate is subject to the lien is determined differently in different states, on a construction of the state statute.60

An equitable estate or interest in land was not subject to the lien of a judgment under the early

R. A. 58, 23 Am. St. Rep. 232, 21 Atl. 358; Gullett Gin Co. v. Oliver, 78 Tex. 182, 14 S. W. 451.

56. Cushing v. Edwards, 68 Iowa, 145, 25 N. W. 940; York Bank's Appeal, 36 Pa. St. 458; Craig v. Sebrell, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 131. Contra, Glasscock v. Stringer (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 920.

57. Sapp v. Wightman, 103 III. 150; Baker v. Chandler, 51 Ind. 85; Kerngood v. Davis, 21 S. C. 183; Black, Judgments, Sec.Sec. 417, 418.

58. See, e. g., Donner v. Palmer, 23 Cal. 40; Yackle v. Wight-man, 103 III. 169; Mudge v. Liv-ermore, 148 Iowa, 472, 123 N. W. 199; Hubbard v. Jones, 61 Kan. 722, 60 Pac. 743; Farmers' Bank of Maryland v. Heighe, 3 Md. 357; Bergen v. State, 58 Miss. 623; Lamb v. Sherman, 19 Neb. 681, 28 N. W. 319; Stewart v. Wheeling

& L. E. Ry. Co., 53 Ohio St. 151, 29 L. R. A 438, 41 N. E. 247; Firebaugh v. Ward, 51 Tex. 409.

59. Verdin v. Slocum, 71 N. Y. 345; Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427, 63 Am. Dec. 708; Lancaster County Bank v. Stauffer, 10 Pa. St. 398; Bridge v. Ward, 35 Wis. 687.

60. That a leasehold estate is not subject to the lien, see Sum-merville v. Stockton Milling Co., 142 Cal. 529, 76 Pac. 243; Bis-mark Building & Loan Ass'n v. Bolster, 92 Pa. St. 123; Ely v. Beaumont, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 124. See, also, Merry v. Hallet. 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 497. Contra, First Nat. Bank of Davenport v. Bennett, 40 Iowa, 537; Stockett v. Howard, 34 Md. 121; Northern Bank of Kentucky v. Roosa, 13 Ohio, 334. The statute sometimes expressly provides for a lien on

English statute before referred to, and is not, at the present day, regarded as so subject, in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary.60a In some states, however, a statute imposing the lien on the "real estate" or "real property" of the debtor is considered to include equitable as well as legal interests, and express provisions to the same effect are quite usual.61 The judgment creditor, moreover, apart from statute, may, after return of execution unsatisfied, file a bill to obtain satisfaction of the judgment out of an equitable interest, and, upon so doing, the judgment becomes effective thereon as against any incumbrances or conveyances subsequent to the date of such filing.62 Under statutes subjecting equitable interests to the lien, mortgaged land belonging to the judgment debtor, the "equity of redemption," is subjected to the lien, even where the legal view of a mortgage is adopted, and, in states where the mortgagee has merely a lien without the legal title, the mortgagor's interest in the land is so subject as a legal estate.63 all terms which have more than a certain number of years to run.