60a. Morsell v. First Nat. Bank of Washington, 91 U. S. 357, 361, 23 L. Ed. 436; Freedman's Savings & Trust Co. v. Earle, 110 U. S. 710, 28 L. Ed. 301; Terrell v. Prestel, 68 Ind. 86; Nessler v. Neher, 18 Neb. 649, 26 N. W. 471; Sipley v. Wass, 49 N. J. Eq. 463, 24 Atl. 233; Dixon v. Dixon, 81 N. C. 323; Smith v. Ingles, 2 Ore. 43. In Pennsylvania a different view has been taken, for reasons growing out of the want of a court of equity. Auwerter v. Ma-thiot, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 402.

61. See Niantic Bank v. Dennis, 37 III. 381; Pease v. Frank, 263 III. 500, 105 N. E. 299; Cook v. Dillon, 9 Iowa, 407, 74 Am. Dec.

354; Maxwell v. Vaught, 96 Ind. 141; McKeithan v. Walker, 66 N. C. 95.

62. Freedman's Savings Trust Co. v. Earle, 110 U. S. 710, 28 L. Ed. 301; Lee v. Stone, 5 Gill J (Md.) 1, 23 Am. Dec. 589; Roach's Ex'rs v. Bennett, 24 Miss. 98; Coutts v. Walker, 2 Leigh, (Va.) 268. See Ware v. Delahaye, 95 Iowa, 667, 64 N. W. 640.

63. Pahlman v. Shumway, 24 III. 128; Cook v. Dillon, 9 Iowa, 407, 74 Am. Dec. 354; McGuire v. Wilkinson, 72 Mo. 199; Macau-ley v. Smith, 132 N. Y. 524. 30 N. E. 997; McKeithan v. Walker, 66 N. C. 95; Kinports v. Boynton, 120 Pa. St. 306, 6 Am. St. Rep. 706, 14 Atl. 135; And see Morsell v.

When land is jointly owned by two or more persons, the undivided interest of each is subject to the lien of a judgment against him to the same extent as an interest in severalty. In case of partition, the lien attaches to the specific land allotted to the judgment debtor,64 or, in case of sale for purposes of partition, to the fund obtained thereby.65

The legal title of a vendor who has not yet executed a conveyance is subject to the lien of a judgment against him, to the extent of the purchase money still unpaid, that is, the lien binds the land so far as the rights of the vendee will not be affected thereby.66 If all the purchase money has been paid, the vendor has merely a bare legal title, which is not subject to the lien,67 and if part only, or if none, has been paid, the vendor's title is, by the weight of authority, subject to the lien, which is, however, liable to be divested by the payment of whatever remains due by the vendee.68

First Nat Bank of Washington, 91 U. S. 357, 23 L. Ed. 436.

64. Bavington v. Clarke, 2 Pen. & & W. (Pa.) 124, 21 Am. Dec. 432 Emson v. Polhemus, 28 N. J. Eq. 439; Inhabitants of Argyle v. Dwinel, 29 Me. 45.

65. Eldridge v. Post, 20 Fla. 579; Garvin v. Garvin, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 55.

66. Ware v. Jackson, 19 Ga. 452; Wahn v. Fall, 55 Neb. 547, 70 Am. St. Rep. 397, 76 N. W. 13; Moyer v. Hinman, 13 N. Y. 180; Coggeshall v. Marine Bank Co., 63 Ohio St. 88, 57 N. E. 1086; Chahorn v. Hollenback, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa) 425, 16 Am. Dec. 587; May v. Emerson, 52 Ore. 262, 96 Pac. 454, 1065; Reid v. Gorman, 37 S. D. 314, 158 N. W. 780; Searle v. Bird, 94 Wash. 21, 161 Pac. 8:58.

67. Thomas v. Kennedy, 24 Iowa, 397, 95 Am. Dec. 740; Baker v. Thompson, 36 Minn. 314, 31 N. W. 51; Schultz v. Selberg, 80 Ore. 688, 157 Pac. 1114; Floyd v. Harding, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 401; Lee v. Wrixon, 37 Wash. 47, 79 Pac. 489; Snyder v. Martin, 17 W. Va. 276, 41 Am. Rep. 670.

68. Shinn v. Taylor, 28 Ark. 523; Kraner v. Chambers, 92 Iowa, 681, 61 N. W. 373; Hampson v. Edelen, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 64, 3 Am. Dec. 530; Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 25 Minn. 382; Moyer v. Hinman, 13 N. Y. 180; Minns v. Morse, 15 Ohio, 568, 45 Am. Dec. 590; Hurt's Adm'x v. Prillaman, 79 Va. 257. Contra, State Bank of Decatur v. Sanders, 114 Ark. 440, 170 S. W. 86; Chisholm v. Andrews, 57 Miss. 636; Jones v. Howard, 142 Mo. 117, 43 S. W. 635; Moore v. Byers, 65 N. C. 240; Snyder v. Botkin, 37 W. Va. 355, 16 S. E. 591. The however lately been repudiated in one state in which previously perhaps it had been most strongly supported.73

The equitable interest of the vendee of land who has not yet received a conveyance is obviously not subject to the lien in those states in which no equitable interests are so subject.69 In states where the judgment lien does exist upon equitable as well as legal interests, the vendee's interest is subject to the lien to the extent to which the purchase money has been paid, that is, the lien on his interest is subject to the prior right of the vendor to payment of whatever part of the price remains unpaid.70

Not only lands which belonged to the judgment debtor at the time of the rendition or docketing of the judgment, but also those thereafter acquired by him, are in most states subject to the lien.71

In case there are two judgments in favor of different creditors at the time of the acquisition of land by the debtor, both judgment liens accrue at the same time, and in this, as in other cases where two or more judgments have an equality of lien, the view has usually been asserted that one judgment creditor can, by the exercise of superior diligence in levying execution, acquire priority over the other or others.72 This view has doctrine of these latter cases is effectively criticized in an editorial note in 17 Columbia Law Rev. 47.

69. Evans v. Feeny, 81 Ind. 532; Roddy v. Elam, 13 Rich. Law (S. C.) 343; Whittington v. Simmons, 32 Ark. 377.

70. Rand v. Garner, 75 Iowa, 311, 39 N. W. 515; Pugh v. Good, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 56, 37 Am. Dec. 534; Adams v. Harris, 47 Miss. 144. See Stewart v. Berry, 84 Ga. 177, 10 S. E. 601.

71. Jackson v. Bank of United States, 5 Cranch, C. C. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 7,131; Wales v. Bogue, 31 III. 464; Ware v. Delahaye, 95 Iowa, 667, 64 N. W. 640; Colt v. Du Bois, 7 Neb. 391; Hulbert v. Hulbert,

216 N. Y. 430, 111 N. E. 70; Moore v. Jordan, 117 N. C. 86, 42 L. R. A. 209, 53 Am. St. Rep. 576, 23 S. E. 259; Greenway v. Cannon, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 177, 39 Am. Dec. 161; Barron v. Thompson, 54 Tex. 235; Muir v. Bosey, 28 Wyo. 46, 146 Pac. 595.

In Ohio the lien does not attach to after-acquired lands (Smith v. Hogg, 52 Ohio St. 527, 40 N. E. 406), nor does it in Pennsylvania, except in the case of a judgement against a vendee subsequently acquiring the legal title (Waters' Appeal, 35 Pa. St. 523, 78 Am. Dec. 354).