Suraaus Coeur or Peng/jloouio. xg; § Now, it appears, that all Bm-r’: demands againlt Bam 17;:. g were liquidated and included in the judgement confelled in 1790; v•v·~..• i that judgment is fatislied, and it is legally difcharged on re- cord : The whole amount of the debt and coils was acleally ‘ paid into Barr': hands. But, it is faid, this judgment was, by a previous agreement, to operate in Burr`: favour, to the amount of no more than I {goo; the balance was paid to Bank': attorney s and, there- ore, Bzmlu is {till indebted to Barr. This may be true be- tween the parties; but how does it operate as between Forde and Craig ? For, the law will not fufcr Borr to give this tranl'- aflion one operation upon Craig, as to himfelf.; and another as —to Forde. Here the money in Fn·de’i hands was attached, and judgment obtained. If Craig proceeds againll: Forde, the gar- nilhee, Forde, will fhew the judgment at Bore': fuit, and that he was legally compelled to pay above ,{_`14oo, by virtue of that proceeding. This will be an anfwer to Croig’.r demand : And why ? Becaufe it is a payment and difcharge of aregular judg- ment. Now, if the garnilhee can hold up this to Cra@· as a real fatisfaétion and payment of a juli debt, Craig can hold it up as fuch to Barr. No man will be allowed to blow hot and cold. If Barr received this money, on account of his judgment, he had a right fo to do ; but then his debt is extinguifhcd. If he did not receive it on this account, then he had no right to it at all ; £ 887, on which Craig had a lien, was wrongfully receiv- ed; and (Img may conlider it as money received to his ufe, and fet it olf in llus action. Suppofe Crafghad fued Barrfor this {Q 887, how could he defend himfelf ? By inliftingthat ‘ there was a hm: fd: debt due from Bank; and that he receivé edit in payment and difeharge of the judgment. Then, in this aélion, he {hall not be allowed to deny, what he mult affirm in that. lf only {goo had been all that was due to Barr, and yet, for the purpole of proteéting the money from the at- tachment, a judgment for { 1,3oo had been confeffed and the money received, Ithink `raig could have recovered it from Barr ; and yet, has the cafe, as the plaintifl`rcprel`ents, this very . afpeét. Here is an aétion, in which judgment could never have been recovered ; judgment is confelied for 5 1,300 ;though {goo is really to be paid to Barr, the relidue is withdrawn . lrom Craig, and paid to Bzmkr. Upon the whole, the plaintiff is reduced to this dilemma : Either it is a full payment and dif- charge of his debt ; or he has unconfcionably received £ 887, on which Craig had a lien, and for which he is accountable to him. In the lirli cafe, his caufe of action is cxtinguilhed; in _ U2 the
�
