case SMALLCOMB against Buckingham Dicta disapprove Giles v Grover Cl fin if  two writ of become facias be deliver to the sheriff on the same day that which  be first execute though last deliver shall have priority but the party who  deliver the first writ may have remedy against the sheriff S c Mod S c comb S  c salk S c Carth S c salk S c holt S c Mod S c ld ray SC corny Rep two writ of  become facias be deliver to the sheriff on the same day we be modern er p  deliver first which we say bind the property indeed at commonlaw before the  statute car c of fraud and perjury if the writ that have the last testae have  be deliver first vet the writ that have the first testae must take place as it  be in cro Elizabeth and if the land be charge by the delivery of the writ no  doubt but the sheriff may sell the good now suppose after the sale of the good  by become facias the king writ come the good may be seize again for the king  for it can be no conclusion or estoppel to the sheriff now for the late  statute of fraud and perjury the question be whether there shall be a fraction  in a day for the statute say time of delivery but not the day keb lev lev Mod  term Rep a of the delivery videlicet that no Writ of become facias or other  writ of execution shall bind the property of the good against who such writ of  execution be sue forth but from the time that such writ shall be deliver to  the sheriff undersheriff or coroner to be execute and for the better  manifestation of the say time the sheriff undersheriff and coroner their  deputy and agent shall upon the receipt of any such writ endorse upon the back  thereof the day of the month or year whereon he or they receive the same  modern suppose the sheriff make a endorsement yet the party be not conclude  but the mark it be only directory to the sheriff agree there be no division of  a day unless in case of necessity as in   light and   b where there be  priority of a instant if twentyfour hour must be the whole time then we be in  the wrong but if only the very time of its delivery then with submission our  writ ought to take place it have be first deliver side cro Elizabeth keb b  good be liable to execution from the time of the testae of the become facias  and this shall be say emanation short catalog Bailey v bunning ray c shower if  the king writ of extent come out after execution yet the execution be  supersede and the king extent shall take up the good but if the sheriff have  sell the good by bill of sale c the property be alter and shall not be divest  by the king writ in the case of Lechmere v thorowgood in Trinity term James  Lord holt chief justice be make to say that the property of the good be vest  by the delivery of the become facias and therefore that a extent from the  crown afterward come too late comb in the case of Cooper v city however Lord  Mansfield be make to say that Comberbatch must be mistake in this part of his  report for that no inception of a execution can bar the crown burr but this  impute mistake seem to be doubt term Rep and in the case of upon v sumner it  be decide that a judgement recover by a subject though not complete execute  shall be prefer to the king extent sue out posterior to the judgement Bl Rep  this determination be recognize as good law in the case of Rourke v dayrell  where it be determine that if good be take in execution on a become facias  against the king debtor and before they be sell a extent come at the king suit  ground on a bind debt test after the delivery of the become facias to the  sheriff the good can be take upon the extent term Rep see also Com dig g Bac  Abr d so here be two writ endorse the same day and the sheriff have make the  bill of sale to we be thereby conclude holt chief justice this be a case of  some concern and it be fit that the law shall be settle and it be worthy  consideration indeed here be a honest sale you put in the writ and let it lie  long then come the other and bring the writ the same day and call for a  warrant present and so get a bill of sale and execute it honest and now you  will defeat it at another day holt chief justice though the become facias be  deliver yet say the party to the sheriff you may let it lie it require no  baste and therefore desire no warrant nor leaves any fee now when a second  become facias come out the same day upon which the sheriff present grant and  make a bill of sale of the good the sale shall be good and shall not be avoid  though the second become facias be deliver a modern er p fortnight after yet  if it be the first execute it shall be good and the party have only his remedy  against the sheriff see the case of Rybot v Peckham mich Geo b r term Rep  notorious facts that where a become facias be deliver to the sheriff and the  officer have levy the debt and make a bill of sale it shall have priority of a  former execution in the office and Hutchinson v Johnston easter Geo that when  two writ of become facias against the same defendant be deliver to a sheriff  on different day and no sale be actual make of the defendant good the first  execution must have the priority even though the seizure be first make under  the subsequent execution term Rep a