Does a judgment attached only to the debtor’s interest in the proceeds of sale but not to the land itself?

The chambers judge below, Mr. Justice Coultas, carried out an extensive review of English and Canadian case law and held that the judgment attached only to the debtor’s interest in the proceeds of sale but not to the land itself. In so holding, he adopted the so-called “relation back” theory of the position of a vendor under an agreement of sale. (The same reasoning was seen to apply to agreements for sale.) This “relation back” theory was described by James, L.J., in his dissenting judgment in Rayner v. Preston (1881) 18 Ch.D. 1, as follows: I am of opinion that the relation between the parties was truly and strictly that of trustee and cestui que trust. I agree that it is not accurate to call the relation between the vendor and purchaser of an estate under a contract while the contract is in fieri the relation of trustee and cestui que trust. But that is because it is uncertain whether the contract will or will not be performed, and the character in which the parties stand to one another remains in suspense as long as the contract is in fieri. But when the contract is performed by actual conveyance, or performed in everything but the mere formal act of sealing the engrossed deeds, then that completion relates back to the contract, and it is thereby ascertained that the relation was throughout that of trustee and cestui que trust. That is to say, it is ascertained that while the legal estate was in the vendor, the beneficial or equitable interest was wholly in the purchaser. [At 13.]