MARSH’S ADM’R vs. ELSWORTH.
Í.BILL IN EQUITY TO ENFORCE EORBISN STATSÍTOEY MEN ON SLAVE-I
ÍL ISxtra-temtorial operaMon Of statutory lien. — The lien created by th® Mississippi statute of 1829, on property -sold hy an administrator under an order of the probate court, .(Hutchinson’s Miss. Code of 1848, p. 675, ch. 49, art. 8, § 3,)'-dannot be enforced in this State, against a purchaser who here acquired the property in good faith for valuable consideration.
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Mobile.
Heard-before the Hon. Wade Keyes.
The original bill in this case was filed on the 19th March,., 1853, by James Hinter, as the administrator of Samuel B. Marsh,"deceased, against George Elsworth; andanamendedl bill was afterwards filed,- to which F. G. Kimball; as the-administrator of Mrs. Julia D. Marsh, who was the widow of said Samuel B. Marsh, was made a defendant. The object of the bill was to enforce a statutory lien on a slave, named Lizzie, who had been, sold by the plaintiff, in Mississippi, under an order of the probate court of Carroll county, and who was in the possession of the defendant Elsworth at the commencement of the suit. The sale was made- by the administrator on the 8th January 1849 ; and the slave was purchased at the sale by the decedent’s widow, who executed her note for the purchase-money, and who *86afterwards removed to this State, -.'bringing the slave with her. The defendant Elsworth acquired the slave by purchase from one Buckliolt, (who was a nephew of Mrs.. Marsh,) on the 15th March, 1849, -at-the- price of-$250-The Mississippi statute, under»--.-which the complainant claimed the lien which he sought to enforce, was set out in-the bill, and is in these-words % <‘When any real or personal-estate, or both, of any deceased person, or of any minor,, shall be sold bj the order of any probate court, on a. credit,, the said property shall-be .held. and. remain subject -and. liable to the payment of the sum or sums for which it. vvas-sold, and the interest thereon, in preference to any other claim or claims-,®f'the ¡purchaser of said, property, or the* assignee of said purchaser, and shall be held liable to the-payment thereof^ as if a mortgage hadbeen taken on the said property, to- secure, the payment thereof.” — Hutchinson’s Mississippi .Code of 1S48, page 675-, chapter 49, article 8, section 3. The hill alleged, that Mrs. Marsh died in this. State, in the fall of 1852, insolvent, and. having never j>aid any part of the purchase-money of the said- slave; and prayed that the slave might be’subjected to the satisfaction of the compla-inaiit’s- statutory lien,-and for general relief,. The defendant Elsworth claimed .to- be .a Iona fide purchaser, for valuable consideration, without notice of the complainant alleged lien ; insisted -that the- Mississippi statute could have no extra-territorial operation,, as .against him, and demurred to the bill, for want of equity-
On final bearing, on pleadings and proof, the- chancellor? dismissed the bill f and .his decree is. now assigned as error,
Robert B. áhimstea», for appellant.
1. The general rule undoubtedly is, that the purchaser of personal property acquires no better title than his vendor had. No fraud being alleged, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies, and Elsworth must look to the warranty of his vendor, who, in his turn, acquired only the title of Mrs. Marsh.
2. What was the title of Mrs. Marsh ? Under the Mississippi statute of 1S29, as set out in the record, she had *87only an equitable interest, in the nature-mb. an equity of redemption. The administrator’s sale effected no change of title, — L Sm. & Mar, 220 ; JO ib. J43-49,
3. The removal of the property to this State -did not affect the plaintiff’s lien, in the absence of a positive statute relieving it of the lien,-* — 3g' Maine, gS; JO N H- 4(5,; Story’s Conflict of Taws, 401, 402.
4, The registration statutes of this State do not apply to the case. — Beall v'..Williamson, 14 Ala. 55 ; Swift v. Fit Jiugh, d Porter, 39?
CuambeRLAIN ,.& Hale,' mitra,
cited and relied on Donald & (Jo. v, Meivitt, 33 Ala. 54-6 ; Hanrich v. Andrews, 9 Porter, 24; 13 Peters, 5S9; McCoy v, Odopi, 20 Ala, 506.; Story pn Conflict of Uaws, 583, 631,