590 DUVALL v. WATERS.

This had been introduced as the law of Maryland and was in
regular and constant operation,(w) when it was declared, by a Bri-
tish statute passed in the year 1732,(x) that real estates, situate in
the plantations, belonging to any person indebted, should be subject
to the like process for selling and disposing of the same towards
the satisfaction of debts as personal estate. This British statute
appears to have been first introduced as the law of Maryland about
the year 1740.(y) This statute, however, specified no mode of
judicial proceeding, nor designated any form of execution, but,
like the previous English statute, under which the proceeding by
elegit had been framed, it merely declared the rule, leaving its
application to be made by the courts of justice in such manner and
form as they deemed best.

In Maryland, for the purpose of executing and conforming to
this British statute, the writ of fieri facias was so altered as to
command, that the debt should be levied of "the lands and tene-
ments" as well as of the goods and chattels of the defendant. And
as an English statute passed in the year 1676,(z) and which had
been then adopted here, had declared, that no estate or interest in
lands, exceeding the term of three years, should be assigned or
granted unless by deed or note in writing; and as the acts of
Assembly required all conveyances of any estate, for above seven
years, in lands to be in writing and recorded;(a) it seems to have
been always considered and held, that, although the title to land,
as in case of a levy of the fieri facias upon personalty, passed by
the sale made by the sheriff; yet some written evidence of the sale
was necessary, and that such evidence should be recorded. Hence
although no inquisition was required, as under the English statute
giving the elegit; yet, it seems to have been always understood,
that, in all cases, where real estate was levied upon and sold, it
was necessary, as an evidence of the title which had been so
passed by the sale, that the fieri facias should be returned, that the
sheriff should specify with sufficient certainty in his return the real
estate which he had so sold, and that the return so made by him
should be recorded, (o)

Upon these general principles it has been laid down, that a
return of a sale of lands under a fieri facias should regularly, for

(«?) Kilty's Rep. 144.—(x) 5 Geo. 2, c. 7.—(y) Davidson's Lessee v. Beatty, 3
H. & McH. 612.—(2) 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 3.—(a) 1715, ch. 47.—(6) Bull v. Shere-
dine, 1 H. &, J. 410; Boring v. Lemmon, 5 H. & J. 223; Barney v. Patterson, 6
H. & J. 204.