Hilton, Lyle F.

English

bepress Legal Repository

Liens of Judgments Rendered in United States District and Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Upon Real Estate in Pennsylvania

Penn State Dickinson Law: IDEAS

Volume 55 Issue 2 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 55, 1950-1951 1-1-1951 Liens of Judgments Rendered in United States District and Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Upon Real Estate in Pennsylvania Lyle F. Hilton Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation Lyle F. Hilton, Liens of Judgments Rendered in United States District and Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Upon Real Estate in Pennsylvania, 55 DICK. L. REV. 169 (1951). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol55/iss2/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact lja10@psu.edu. NOTESLIENS OF JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN UNITED STATESDISTRICT AND PENNSYLVANIA APPELLATE COURTSUPON REAL ESTATE IN PENNSYLVANIAIn searching titles or supervising the searching of real estate titles, theattorney at law should consider the liens of judgments rendered in the UnitedStates District Courts and the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts. Thisarticle is written to answer the question, "What indices must be checked to en-able the searcher to determine the existence of such liens on real estate, thetitle to which is being searched?"At common law land was not subject to sale on execution and so a judgmentattached no lien to land. The Statute of Westminster II, (13 Edw. I) c. 18 gavethe writ of elegit, or execution, which the courts in England held to makea judgment a lien upon land of the judgment debtor.'In the United States many, but not all, states passed statutes providingthat a judgment would be a lien upon all of the judgment debtor's landsituate within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which rendered the judg-ment. The law concerning the existence, attachment and duration of judgmentliens was, consequently, not uniform throughout the states and, in the absenceof federal legislation the federal courts observed the law of the state whereinthe judgment was rendefed.2The Act of 1840, July 4, revised statutes 967, was the first federal legisla-tion to guide the courts, providing:"Judgments and decrees rendered in a circuit or district courtwithin any state shall cease to be liens on real estate or chattels real inthe same manner and at like periods as judgments and decrees of thecourts of such state cease by law to be liens thereon."In Brown v. Pierce, 1868, 7 Wall. 205 (217) the court said ". . . thedecisions of this court have established the doctrine that Congress, in adoptingthe processes of the States, also adopted the modes of process prevailing at thatdate in the courts of the several States, in respect to the lien of judgmentswithin the limits of their respective jurisdictions."Subsequently, some states enacted legislation providing for the extensionof the lien of judgments rendered in stare and county courts by filing a transcriptof the judgment in the office of the prothonotary for the county in which theland to which the lien was to attach was situate. The lien of a judgment renderedin a federal court could not be so extended by state legislation3 and consequentlyI Dartmouth Say. Bank v. Bates, 44 Fed. 456 (1890).2 Brown v. Pierce, 1868. 7 Wall. 205 (217).8 Massingill v. Downs, 7 How. (U.S.) 760, 12 L.Ed. 903 (1849).DICKINSON LAW REVIEWsuitors in state courts held an advantage over suitors in federal courts, namelythat once judgment was rendered, its lien could be attached to any land withinthe state.To overcome this advantage the federal courts held that the lien of a judg-ment rendered in a federal court was co-extensive with the jurisdiction of thecourt. 4 This rule reversed the situation, giving suitors in federal courts an ad-vantage over those in state courts.Congress opened the door to strict equality of liens, as between judgmentsrendered in state courts and judgments rendered in federal courts, by passingthe Act of 1888, August 1, 25 Stat. 357, 28 U.S.C.A. 812, which provides,in effect, "Every judgment rendered by a district court within a State shall bea lien on the property located in such State in the same manner, to the sameextent and under the same conditions as a judgment of a court of general juris-diction in such State, and shall cease to be a lien in the same manner and time,provided that such State accomodate district court judgments in whatever pro-cedure is prescribed."It is necessary, in view of the above legislation, that we turn our attentionto the laws of Pennsylvania which provide for docketing tht indexing judgmentsrendered in the Pennsylvania Supreme and Superior Courts.The Act of 1799, March 20, 3 Sm. L. 358 1, 12 P.S. 865, provides: "That...no judgment rendered ...in the said Supreme Court ...shall be a lienon real estate, excepting in the county in which such judgment shall be render-ed. .The Act of 1895, June 24, P.L. 212 8, par. 8, 17 P.S. 192, ,provides thatno judgment rendered for the first time by a Superior Court for the paymentof money shall be a lien on realty until the record is returned to the court belowand filed at the request of the judgment creditor.Thus it is seen that Pennsylvania requires docketing and indexing of thejudgments of the State Supreme and Superior Courts in the office of theProthonotary of Common Pleas before such judgment attach as liens to realestate except that judgments of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are, withoutdocketing in Common Pleas, liens upon real estate situate within the countyin which the judgments are rendered. The above legislation cleared the way forlegislation restricting District Court judgments and this was immediately en-acted.4 Lombard v. Bayard, 1 Wall. Jr. C.C. (U.S.) 196, Fed. Cas. 8,469 (1848); In re McGill, 6 Pa.504 (1847).NOTESThe Act of 1895, June 24, P.L. 247 provided:"That the prothonotaries of the several courts of common pleas. . be and they are hereby authorized and required to enter transcriptsof the records of judgments and decrees rendered in the . . . Dis-trict Courts of the United States within the State, when duly certified,and index the same in the same manner as transcripts of records ofjudgments and decrees obtained in any of the courts of general jurisdic-tion of this State are entered and indexed, to make them liens, . . .and no judgment or decree entered in the . . . District or other Courtof the United States, shall be a lien on any real estate in any county ofthis Commonwealth, unless the same be so entered in the court of commonpleas of the county wherein such real estate is situate: Provided, thatnothing herein contained shall be construed to require the docket-ing of a judgment or a decree of a United States court, or the filingotga transcript thereof, in or within the same county in which thejudgment or decree is rendered by such United States court."The Act of 1895, supra, was repealed by the Act of 1927, April 27, P.L.477 but was re-enacted as the Act of 1929, May 17, P.L. 1805, 17 P.S. 1932,and as such remains the law.The only judicial test of the above legislation was Seventeenth Street LandCompany v. Huatead, 263 Pa. 342, 106 A. 540 (1919) in which case the courtheld that the lien of a judgment rendered in a federal court attaches to landin the county in which such judgment is rendered without entry in the courtof common pleas, this being a specific provision of the Act of 1895, June 24, P.L.247, supra.It would seem that the scope of the Act of 1929, supra, being worded toindude judgments of all and any federal courts, is considerably broader than ispermitted by the Act of 1888, supra, that act naming only the judgments of theUnited States District Courts as being susceptible to state legislation. However,the District Court is the only Federal court of original jurisdiction the judgmentsand decrees of which become liens on real estate.5In ruling upon state legislation under the Act of 1888, supra, the courtsin other jurisdictions have thus far ruled only on the issue of equality of lien asprovided for in the state legislation and upon this point it would seem thatthe Act of 1929, supra, would be upheld.6In answer to the initial question two rules are implied by the foregoing dis-cussion:5 LADNER, CONVEYANCING IN PENNSYLVANIA, 453 (2nd ed. 1941).6 Dartmouth Say. Bank v. Bates, 44 Fed. 456 (1890); Lineker v. Dillon, 275 Fed. 460 (1921);Reah v. Smith, 274 U.S. 434 (1927); Rathbone v. Kimball, 220 N.W. 244 (1928); In reJackson Light and Traction Co., Lee v. Newton et al, C.C.A. 5th. 269 F. 223 (1920); Thompsonv. Avery, 11 Utah 214, 39 P. 829 (1895).172 DICKINSON LAW REVIEW1. In counties in which a United States District Court or the PennsylvaniaSupreme Court sits, the dockets of these courts must be checked in additionto the judgment docket in the office of the Prothonotary of the Court of CommonPleas.2. In counties in which neither a United States District Court nor thePennsylvania Supreme Court sits, the judgment docket in the office of theProthonotary of the Court of Common Pleas is exhaustive as to judgmentsthe liens of which have attached to real estate within the county.Lyle F. Hilton

https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1825&context=dlra

Liens of Judgments Rendered in United States District and Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Upon Real Estate in Pennsylvania

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Penn State Dickinson Law: IDEAS