The decisive questions of law are:
1. Does the judgment of the People’s Loan and Savings Bank against the Fourth Creek Drainage District constitute a lien or encumbrance upon -that portion of the land within the district and within the contemplation of the warranty clause in the deed ?
2. Is the land liable or subject to further assessment?
Drainage assessments are “charges” attaching to the land as they fall due from time to time, and follow the land until all have been liquidated. They are not liens upon land until levied and due. Hence, unmatured drainage assessments are not within the boundaries of a warranty clause of a deed duly executed and delivered by the owner of land within such district to- a purchaser. Pate v. Banks, 178 N. C., 139, 100 S. E., 251; Branch v. Saunders, 195 N. C., 176, 141 S. E., 583; Carawan v. Barnett, 197 N. C., 511, 149 S. E., 740. Nor would a judgment against a municipal corporation constitute a lien upon the real estate of an owner of land within the boundary or geographical area of such corporation.
The foregoing authorities answer the first question of law “No.”
The statutes covering assessments and bond issues for drainage districts are C. S., 5351 to 5374. C. S., 5352, provides, in part: “Any landowner in the district not wanting to pay interest on the bonds may, within fifteen days after the publication of such notice, pay to the county treasurer the full amount for which his land is liable, to be ascertained from the classification sheet and certificate of the board showing the total cost of the improvement, and have his lands released from'liability to be assessed for the improvement; but such land shall continue liable for any future assessment for maintenance or for any increased assessment authorized under the law.” It is obvious that the drainage statutes.impose liability upon the land within the district until the original bond issue for making the improvements or indebtedness incurred therefor has been paid.
The contract between the parties undertakes to provide for such liability accruing in the future, and it seems to be the intent of the agree*581ment, as construed by tbe court, to safeguard tbe purchaser agailrst sucb liability arising on a reassessment of tbe land as provided by statute. Therefore, tbe Court is of tbe opinion tbat tbe land within tbe district remains liable for tbe indebtedness originally created for mating tbe improvement, and tbat tbe Land Bank, by virtue of tbe terms of tbe contract, has deposited with tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court tbe specified sum of money to cover sucb liability.
Tbe Land Bank relies upon C. S., 5373 (g). However, this act was passed in 1933, and is not deemed to affect tbe rights of tbe parties as disclosed by tbe record in tbe present case.
Affirmed.