Hibberd

1. The judgment in the action of Hibberd v. Chipman and Aughinbaugh was docketed in such a manner as to constitute a lien on the real property of the defendants therein. The statute required that the names of the defendants should be entered in the docket in alphabetical order. (Pr. Act, Sec. 205.) It was evidently intended that the surnames should precede the Christian names, and the omission of the Christian name of the defendant Chipman did not deprive the docket of its useful function of directing *518 the attention of those interested to the existence of a judgment, and to all its incidents.

2. As against judgment creditors of W. W. Ghipman, his deed to E. S. Ghipman was not delivered until after the Hibberd judgment was docketed.

3. Under the practice in chancery—except in cases of strict foreclosure, when the decree deprived the mortgagor of his right to redeem—the decree of foreclosure operated in rem, and directed a sale of the mortgaged premises. Such decree did not possess the qualities of a judgment in an action at law, on which execution could issue, to be levied on the general property of the mortgagor. But, by section 246 of the Practice Act of 1851, it was…

I concur in the opinion of a majority of the court, except on the third proposition discussed. On that point I dissent, and also from the judgment.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace, having been of counsel in this cause in the court below, did not participate in its decision here.