suspend further action under the decree, leaving the property committed by the order to their appointment to the receivers in their possession until the appeal should be finally determined, or was its effect to displace and discharge the superseded decree and entitle the owner whose possession had been disturbed to an immediate restitution of the property?"

The court then discusses the rule that existed at common law in cases of this character, and after weighing and considering this rule of the common law, adopted and followed by the courts of many states, that the supersedeas only suspended action of the officer making the levy. Our court expressly announced that the common law doctrine would not be followed in this state, and on page 589, says: "But the common law rule has never been adopted in this state, and with us the supersedeas discharged the levy of an execution." See also, State v. Johnson, 13 Fla. 33; Blondhein v. Moore, 11 Md. 365; Everett v. State, 28 Md. 190.

It follows, therefore, that the said W. F. Shows having obtained a writ of certiorari, and made the proper bond, which the statute says shall operate as a supersedeas, had his property restored to him without the execution lien, and had a right to sell and dispose of this property so levied upon, and that appellees bought the property free from the lien.

The judgment in the certiorari proceedings, which appears in full in this record, shows that the case was tried in conformity with section 90 of the Code, and that the court was confined to the examination of questions of law arising or appearing on the face of the record and proceedings. Section 90 of the Code also provides the kind of judgment that should be entered on the trials of certiorari proceedings: "In the case of affirmanceof the judgment of the justice of the peace, the same judgment shall be given as on appeals. In case of a reversal, the circuit court shall enter up such judgment as.

the justice ought to have entered, if the same be apparent, or may then try the cause anew on its merits, and may in proper cases enter judgment on the certiorari or appeal bond, and shall, when justice requires it, award restitution."

It may be that the circuit court did not render the proper judgment, but the aggrieved party had the right of appeal. It may be that O'Ferrell Bros. were entitled to a judgment for the amount of their debt against W. F. Shows, principal, and N. J. Shows, U. S. Collins, L. R. Collins, and Vivan Collins, sureties on his bond, in this matter, but that is a matter that cannot now be complained of. The case was properly removed to the circuit court, which court had full jurisdiction to try and determine the matter as is provided in section 90 of the Code of 1906. A proper bond was given by the said W. F. Shows, which furnished full security to his adversaries, and out of which they could have realized their money if they had obtained the proper judgment. Burrow v. Sanders, 57 Miss. 211; Evans v. Railroad, 74 Miss. 230; Hattiesburg Banking & Trust Co. v. Hood, 52 So. 790.

In our opinion, appellees having purchased this property after the suing out of the writ of certiorari and execution of the supersedeas bond, that the lien on the levy of the execution was absolutely discharged and appellees received the property free from any execution whatsoever.

MAYES, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 21st day of October, 1907, a justice of the peace judgment was recovered by E. G. and Charles O'Ferrell composing the partnership firm of O'Ferrell Bros., against W. F. Shows, A. E. Grayson, and Thomas Sims, for the sum of one hundred forty-one dollars, and seventy-six cents. No appeal was prosecuted from this judgment to the circuit court, and the validity of the

judgment is not questioned in this proceeding. On the 16th day of January, 1908, an execution was issued under the above judgment, directed to the sheriff of the county, and the sheriff levied the execution on certain real property belonging to W. F. Shows. Within six months after the rendition of the judgment, but after the levy of the execution by the sheriff and before the sale, W. F. Shows, on whose property the execution had been levied, and who was also one of the defendants in the judgment, applied for a writ of certiorari in accordance with section 90 of the Code of 1906, which writ was granted, and under it the case was removed to the circuit court. As an incident to obtaining the writ of certiorari, and in accordance with the requirements of the statute, Shows executed and filed a supersedeas bond, conditioned as required, which was duly approved, and all the papers in the case were sent by the justice of the peace to the clerk of the circuit court of the proper county. Afterwards the case was docketed in the circuit court, and on the 27th day of November, 1908, at a regular term of the circuit court, the case came on for trial on the certiorari and was disposed of by the circuit court. The judgment of the circuit court was substantially as follows: "This cause coming on to be heard on plaintiff's petition and writ of certiorari, the court is of the opinion that there is no error on the face of the record, and that the writ of certiorari was improperly sued out. It is therefore ordered by the court that the petition and writ be dismissed, and that petitioner, W. F. Shows, principal, and his sureties [naming them], pay all costs in this behalf expended, for which let execution issue."

It thus appears that the only judgment rendered on the bond by the circuit court was for costs. No appeal was taken from the judgment of the circuit court, and therefore the judgment dismissing the writ of certiorari and assessing costs was a final judgment. After the writ

102 Miss.-5

of certiorari was awarded, and after bond had been executed and approved, W. F. Shows sold the land, which had been previously levied on under the writ of execution, to Bura Hillman and E. L. Shows. There were two deeds, and both deeds were duly filed in the office of the chancery clerk and recorded-one on the 27th day of September, 1908, and one on the 28th day of February, 1908. Subsequently the property was conveyed by Bura Hillman and E. L. Shows to T. J. Harris, Doctor Cranford, and O. D. Shows. Subsequently one A. E. Grayson, also a defendant in the judgment, purchased the same from O'Ferrell Bros., and on some day in the year 1910, claiming to own the judgment, Grayson had the justice of the peace, in whose office the judgment had been obtained, issue a vendi exponas, directed to the sheriff of the county, directing him to sell the lands which had been bought by the parties above named, the property to be sold as the property of W. S. Shows, to satisfy the judgment. When this last execution was issued the sheriff advertised the lands for sale on the 2d day of January, 1911. When this last advertisement was made, the appellees, claiming to own the property, applied for an injunction to restrain the sheriff from selling the lands, and restraining the justice of the peace from issuing any further executions against the lands, and enjoining Grayson from taking any further steps towards subjecting the lands to the satisfaction of the judgment. The bill alleges that when W. F. Shows applied for a writ of certiorari, and executed the supersedeas bond required by law, the effect of same was to discharge and release his property from the lien which had been established by the levying of the execution. In other words, the bill charges that, when the certiorari was granted and the bond given, it was a supersedeas bond, and had the effect to dissipate and dissolve all prior liens which had been established by virtue of the levy of the execution, and the property levied on became

the property of Shows, with absolute dominion over it, unaffected by the lien, and that Shows had a right to dispose of the property, and the purchaser got a good title, free from any liens which might previously have attached under the execution. The above is the substantial contention.

This bill was demurred to on many grounds; but the first and fifth are the only ones we shall notice, since they will dispose of the case. The first ground of the demurrer states that the judgment of the circuit court, dismissing the petition and writ of certiorari, and giving judgment against petitioner and his sureties on his bond for costs, only had the effect of leaving the judgment of the justice of the peace court in full force and effect, and also the levy made under the judgment. The fifth is that there is no equity on the face of the bill. This last cause of demurrer covers the whole case. The court overruled the demurrer, and allowed an appeal to this court to settle the principles of the case.

Section 90 of the Code of 1906, in relation to the procedure on certiorari to a justice of the peace court, is as follows: "All cases decided by a justice of the peace, whether exercising general or special jurisdiction, may, within six months thereafter, on good cause shown by petition, supported by affidavit, be removed to the circuit court of the county, by writ of certiorari, which shall operate as a supersedeas, the party, in all cases, giving bond, with security, to be approved by the judge or clerk of the circuit court, as in cases of appeal from justices of the peace; and in any cause so removed by certiorari, the court shall be confined to the examination of questions of law arising or appearing on the face of the record and proceedings. In case of an affirmance of the judgment of the justice, the same judgment shall be given as on appeals. In case of a reversal, the circuit court shall enter up such judgment as the justice ought to have entered, if the same be apparent, or may then