delivered the opinion of the Court. .
This is an .appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court, for the fifth circuit, and eastern district of Virginia.
•The case was this:
In the. month of June, 1827, §mith and Kennedy obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court .against Reuben. Burton, for $1348 75, with interest from the' 14th October, 1823, and costs. On this judg *478 ment, an elegit was issued on.the 31st of December, 1827. On the 12th of August, in the same' year, Reuben Burton, by deed cpnveyedJiis-real estate to certain trustees, in trust, to sell the same for the benefit of his creditors; amongst many Other debts enumerated in the deed, the - judgment - already mentioned, recovered by Smith and Kennedy, was included.
These last mentioned creditors, the appellees, never assented to, or accepted any thing'under the Crust deegl. -Burton having died, the only trustee who accepted the trust, on the 21st of. December, 182 9,-sold, under the deed, all the estate, both réal and personal conveyed by it; and at that sale, Sarah Burton by her agent, purchased,,at the price of $1000, the interest of Reuben Burton, that is, two-fifth parts in a certain ¡tract of'land called Springfield,-supposed to contain about .five hundred acres, and also his • interest in certain coal pits on the same tract. The character .of Reuben Burton's interest in the Springfield tract.of land,"as-appears- from the record, was that of a reversion in fee, after an estate for life. And the character of . his .interest in the coal pits,, as appears from an agreement in the record, was this-The hens of .Daniel Burton, of whom Reuben was one, were to- have, during' the widow’s life,, the right of Occupying, using, and working the coal pits, and the right and power of. sinking shafts, arid searching for coal orf any part of the land, except the yard, .&c.; paying to the widow, during her life, the yearly, sum of @200, for her dower interest. . The same agreement will show his interest in a'mineral spring, also -included in the decree.
After the death of-Reuben Burton, the appellees, finding that there was no personal estate to satisfy their debt, .in September, 1834, filed their bill’, to enforce the lien created by their judgment; making, amongst others, Sarah Burton a defendant, as purchaser of the interest of Reuben Bürton, before described, in the Springfield tract of land; and coal pits.
She answered, saying that the property conveyed to' her was not purchased for her own benefit, but for the benefit of her son, Thomas .O’. Burton, the appellant. She insisted, in her ahswer, that the appellees had no right to enforce their' judgment, as inore than five years had-elapsed since the death of Reuben Burton; she denied that the judgment created any lien on’ the property purchased by her which was valid against, her; she insisted that the appellees weij.e entitled, to no "relief in equity; and that- at ,aU events, a sale should nOt-bNdecreed.
An amended, bill was thereupon filed, making Thomas 0.-Burton a defendant. He filed an answer; insisting upon the grounds taken by Sarah Burton.
The cause coming on to be heard, the Court held the reversionary interest of Reuben Burton in. the Springfield tract of land, and his interest in the right'of occupying and working the coal pits thereon-, and alsojhis-interest in the mineral spring thereon, with the twentyfiveacreo of land adjoining thereto, liable to the appellees’ judgment *479 and decreed a moiety o£ Reuben Burton’s interest to be sold. From that decree this appeal is taken.
Upon this state of facts, two questions-arise: 1st. Whether, the judgment created a lien on the reversionary interest of Reuben Burton in -the land, in question ? And, 2d. Whether it .was cpmpetent to the Court to decree a sale of his interest, with' a view to accelerate the payment of the debt;~ or whether the appellees should have been left to such remedy as they had at law ?
As to the first.point. In relation to Muds of which the debtor has the.actual seisin,-there is no doubt but that the judgment creates a lien. Upon this subject, this Court said', in the case- .of the United States
vs.
Morrison and others,-
*480 . Now, upon principle, it would seem to be clear, that- whatever estate descended to the heir, which was liable as assets to the bond, debt of the ancestor, must be bound by a judgment obtained against the ancestor in his lifetime.
But tins is not left-to rest upon deductions frbm general principles, or analogy to the case of assets' descended to the heir. Whatever may. be the doctrine as to reversions after estates tail, about which there -has been some doubt, as appears from the case before cited, from Jacob’s Reports; there is a current'of authority going to prove that a reversion- after ah estate .for life, is- bound by a judgment against the ancestor from whom it immediately descends. -
The statute of Virginia giving to a party.the -right, at his election, to have an elegit, is almost, a transcript of. the statute of Westminster the second. The writ itself commands the officer to deliver to the plaintiff a moiety of. all the. .lands and tenements, whereof the debtor, at the time of obtaining the judgment was seised, or at any time afterwards.' ■ -
Lands and tenements, then, are the subject on which the writ is .to operate.
Now; in Comyn’s Digest, title Grant, E. '2, it is • said, that by grant of- ah lands and tenements, a reversion passes;. In the same book, title Estate, B. 12, it-is said: If a man grant the-land itself the reversion passes. So in Moore’s Reports, 36, a -reversion is said to be a tenement.- Thus it appears that a.-reversion falls' within each of the terms, lands, and tenements. But the party must have been seised at the time of obtaining the judgment, or after-wards. ' • \
- Now. let us see what is meant by the .seisin spoken of 'in the statute. And-the authorities áre clear that it is not confined to actual corporeal, possession. In Gilbert on Executions, pages 38 and 39, it is said, that the 'judgment-binds not only" jthe lands and tenements of which thé defendant" is actually seised, but also- the reversions on leases for lives,, as well as for years; for although the words of the elegit are, that without delay yoii cause to bé delivered a moiety of all the lands, and tenements-of which the aforesaid B. was seised;' &c., yet the intent of the writ .extends to whatever lands; and tenements were actually vested in the defendant ; because the statute is, a moiety of the land, which extends to reversions, which are comprised under the name lands, since they áre lands returning to the defendant when the particular estate ceases.
So in 2 Williams’ Saun. 68, it is said:' Judgment binds not only lands of which defendant is actually seised, but' also reversion's on leases for lives or years; and, therefore, á moiety of a reversion may ■be extended, and plaintiff will have a moiety of the rent So in Chitty on Descents, 338, it is said, That if judgment be bad in the debtor’s lifetime, it will bind the property,-though no execution be taken out till the property descends to others. Nay, in case of a judgment,"it is said to bind, even wheré it is against a person from Whom the estate does not immediately descend, as if it. were against *481 a remainderman o,r reversioner; whereas, the contrary would be the case of a bond on which no judgment had been rendered in the,_ 'debtor’s lifetime, who stood in the same relation. •
; The author last cited, in page 54, quoting Watkins on Descents, 40, 41., Speaking of the subject of seisin of reversions, remarks, that the confusion seems'to have, been created by the different meanings which have been attached to the word “ seisin;” by being used in a general sense when it should properly have been confined in its acceptation ; or by- being confined when it should have been taken in a general sense. And in pages 53, 54, he thus sums up the doctrine. Wé must here remember that the expressions' or terms of a seisin in law and a seisin in deed, refer- qnly to' the.present and actual'corporeal possession of the premisés; and not to the fixture of an interest which is to come into actual enjoyment in some future event: and -here the word'“seisin” is .used in its strict sense; and though we frequently Use the term “seisin” of a remainder or reversion expectant upon a freehold,' yet this signifies no more than that- the", property in them is fixed in thé owner,, and that such owner, is placéd in the tenancy^ The particular éstates, and those expectant upon them, form in' law only one estate; and the delivery of possession to the person taking first extends to all. All therefore may be said to be seised, all .being placed in the tenáncy, and the pro* ■ perty Peing thus fixed in all. It is upon these, principles tháf the authorities lay down the. doctrine, that a judgment binds a reversion after an estate for"life. ■
We are therefore satisfied that the judgment of the appellees bound the reversionary interest in the land in question; and as to the other property embraced in th'e decree, there is no room for doubt or difficulty.- And then the question is,- whether the Court ought to have decreed a,sale, with a view to accelerate the payment of the debt; or whether the appellees. should . have been left to such remedy as they had at law ? Upon the subject of the powér of a Court of equity in this respect, the authorities are decisive. More than a cen■tury ago, in the case, of Robinson vs. Tong, 3 Viner’s Abr. Assets A, pl. 28, p. 145, an advowson was decreed-to be sold, at the instance bf creditors, as. assets descended; and the decree was affirmed in the House of Lords.- .That is supposed to have been the case npt of judgment,, but bond creditors. In Stileman vs. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 607, Lord Hardwicke decreed a sale of a moiety of the land to satisfy a judgment creditor. He oonfiiie'd the decree to. a moiety j fiecause the judgment .only Pairad a moiety at law. On that occasion he said, that whilst equity could not change the -rights of the parties, It might accelerate, the payment by directing the salé bf a moiety, and not let. the creditor, wait until he was paid out of the rents and profits. Thé principle was asserted by Lord Redesdale in 2 Sch." and L,ef. 138, and in the same book, 13; and such he stated to be the settled doctriné in.Ireland. .In the first of these cases he said: “ Although this-.Court has been in'the habit of selling to pay judgment,, debts, where it was ascertained, that they "Were legal *482 liens on-the land, the foundation of that was the .legal right. The only equity the creditor had, was-to render-his remedy more éfféctual by getting a sale, instead of levying his debt out of rents and profits, Which was the- only execution the common law gave.
. These cases ate cited and relied upon, and the doctrine of them approved, in
2
Leigh, 30; and in page 58 of that volume, Judge Green says; “This principle, so far as I am informed, has been uniformly practised on in Virginia, in the cases of heirs bound by the obligations, of their ancestors. .'And although I cannot see clearly the foundation of this equity to sell, where the'law only-authorizes . an extent, or a personal judgment, or decree against thé heir for the value of the assets descended, whether aliened by him or not, (see the statute of fraudulent devises;) yet Lthink we are bound by the practice founded oh these precedents,- so long acquiesced in.” -In
A very strong application of this' doctrine was made in the case of the Mutual Assurance Society
vs.
Stanard et al.,
A still, stronger application of the doctrine was made by the same Court, in the case pf Coutts
vs.
Walker,
It is argued that the judgment in this case was barred by the act of limitations of Virginia. . That act provides, that no action of debt shall be brought against any executor or administrator upon a judgment obtained against his testator, or intestate, nor shall, any scire facias be- issued against any executor; or administrator, to revive such judgmént, after the expiration of five yéárs; from the. qualifi- ■ cation of his exéctftor, of administrator; The- facts in the' record furnish a decisive answer to this argument. . It appears -from;them, that the administration on Reubep Burton’s'estate was granted on the "9th of December, 1829; and this suit- was brought on the ,15th of September, 18.34.. So that five years had , not elapsed from the time of the qualification of the administrator.
This, view renders it unnecessary to examine whether the appellees-would .'not have, been' within the Saving of the- statute, as contended for by, their counsel. . . .
'Furthermore,it is objected that there should have been-amaccount taken of the administration of Reuben Burton’s personal estate; Without stopping to inquire whether -thát would he necessary in. -any case,’where the suit is brought 'merely to enforce a legal fieri-; it is a sufficient answer to this, objection to say — that there is- undánt evidence in the record, that there, was no p.ersorial- estate: nothing, .therefore, could have béen more Unnecessary or unprofitable than to have ordered an account to. he taken. .
The last objection is, that'an account should have been ordered of the rents, and profits of'the'Coal property.
Here, too, the record furnishes a satisfactory answer. Assuming, for the purpose of meeting this objection, that 'by analogy to the case of marshaling assets, a Court of equity would not decree á sale of real éstate to satisfy a judgment where the rents and profits would discharge it in a reason'ablé time, as was held by the, Court in-the c,ase of Tennent’s heirs
vs.
Patton,
In that case, therefore, the debt would be satisfied bv the rents and profits in a short time, ' In tHs case the facts are these. There was an outstanding life estate in all the Springfield tract of land, except the coal pits and the -mineral spring. Reuben Burton s interest in the coal pits was two-fifths, in .the privilege of working them during the lifetime of the tenant-for life; she receiving, annually two *485 hundred dollars for the whole. Reuben Burton’s real Interest, thert^ is only two-fifths of any surplus which might remain, after deduct-; ing two-fifths of the annual rent to he paid. But the parties themselves seem to have considered $200 perannum as the fuÜ value of the whole privilege- of working them. ■ If the agreement of the parties were to be taken as the; standard of the annual v'alue, his interest wouild really be worth nothing; -because he would have to. pay precisely the same proportion of the rent which he received of the profits ;,; and it must .be assumed, that they were worth more than the parties fixed as the value, in- order to make any surplus at all. But, at all events, there is nothing in the case to justify the heliéf that there would, he any surplus that would .discharge the judgment in a reasonable- time, or/even in a long time: for, at the date of the decree, the whole, debt, including principal, interest, and costs, amounted to about $2,500; and the principal being $i;348 75 cents, there would he an annually accruing interest of about$80, besides the annual payment of two-fifths of the $200'for rent, which would he $80 .more. Thus it. will appear that his interest of two-fifths must produce $160 Annually, in order even, to prevent the debt from .being increased.. To allow $160 for his two-fifths would require .that the whole should be worth annually $400, which is. preeisely double, the sum at which the .parties fixed the rent.
This then seems to us to - he, emphatically, a case in which the established principles of equity justify the sale of the property, with .a view to' accelerate the payment of a debt due to a judgment creditor.
Iñ every respect in which we have viewed the case, we. think that the decree of'the'Circuit Gourt is correct.; and it is-therefore affirmed, with costs. .
This pause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is.adjudged and decreed by this Court that the decree of the said Circuit- Court in this cause he, and the same, is hereby, affirmed with costs.