Can a distress made after judgment on the covenant to pay rent become illegal?

Bearing in mind that the decision was that a distress, made after judgment on the covenant, was illegal, it is difficult to appreciate how — as in Davies v. Regent Holdings Ltd. — a legal distress fully completed by seizure can afterwards become illegal when the landlord pursues his right of action on the covenant to pay rent and obtains judgment. If such were to be the case and a distress after judgment is an illegal distress, a landlord faced with substantial arrears in rent and an inadequate quantity of distrainable goods would be on the horns of a dilemma. If he distrained, his distress would be illegal if he went to judgment on the covenant; alternatively, if he proceeded to judgment without distraining, he might have an uncollectible judgment and have lost his rights over the few distrainable goods.

Hence, in my opinion, Chancellor v. Webster is not applicable to the case before me because, even if correctly decided, its import is simply that once judgment is taken (whether satisfied or not) the right to distrain is extinguished by merger, obviously by reason of the application of the maxim transit in rem judicatam. That is as far as the decision goes. It would not follow that it is authority for the conclusion that a distress lawfully made (as in the instant case) merges with a judgment subsequently taken.