Ch. XII. Pt. I. Sec. v.] Extents. 289 before the actual sale of the defendant's goods, under the plaintiff's execution. But since the statute, it has become a dubious question whether or not the Crown suit is to be preferred where the subject's judgment is prior to the commencement of the Crown suit, or the award of the Crown process, and where the sub- ject's writ is also delivered to the sheriff before the extent. The Courts of Common Pleas {a) and King's Bench {b) have unanimously decided in favor of the subject on this point, but the Court of Exchequer have subsequently and recently held otherwise {c). As the authorities are contradictory, the sub- ject demands investigation. That (n) Uppom V, Summer, 2 Bla. Rep. 1294. (i) Rorke u. Dayrel!, 4 Term Rep. 402. (c) The King v. Allnnt, cited 16 East, 27S, notes. See the argument in Thurs- ton V. Mills, ibid. 254. confirmed in the King V, Sloper and Allen, Exchequer, Saturday, November 14, 1818. The following is the report of that case in the Times newspaper. *• The Attorney- General on a farmer day obtained a rule calling on the sheritF to pay over to the Crown a certain sum of money which he had in his hands, the pro- perty of the defendants, in satisfaction of a debt due from them to his Ma- je«ty. •' Sir William Owen, on the part of Messrs. Morlaiids, bankers, opposed the motion. It appeared that Messrs. Morlands had obtained a verdict against the defendants, and had entered up judgment, sued out execution, and placed it in the hands of the sheriff, who had levied under it. Three days after the levy was made, and before the goods were sold, bis Majesty came in with his writ of extent. The sheriff however, on the part of Messrs. Mor- lands, retained the money which was the proceeds of the goods, on the ground that they having obtained their judg- ment and execution before his Majesty's writ came down, the Crown was ousted. The Attorney-General, on the other side, contended, that the taking of the goods by the sheriff did not at all divest Sloper and Allen of their property in them. They were still their goods, and only in the legal custody or possession of the sheriff, for a purpose to be after^ wards carried into effect, namely, for sale, in order that the proceeds might be applied to payment of a debt due from the defendant to Messrs. Mor- lands. The King's writ cdme down before that circumstance took place ; and therefore the rule applied laid down in the King and Allnut, in which case the judges held, that up to the change of property actually taking place, the King's writ should have precedence of all others. Had the sale taken place only one minute before the King's writ arrived, he was ready to acknowledge the King would have been ousted j but as it was, he contended his motion wag well founded.
- The Court after hearing the argu-
ment, decided that the Attorney-Ge- neral was entitled to his rule. The case of the King and Allnut was decided fourteen years ago ; the Court had acted on it ever since ; and until it was im- U peached,
