
    Martin Schuck, for Use of J. D. Potter, Plff. in Err., v. City of Pittsburgh.
    A mandamus execution to the assignee of part of a judgment against a municipal corporation may be properly refused.
    (Argued November 4, 1887.
    Decided November 11, 1887.)
    October Term, 1887,
    No. 230,
    W. D., before GoedoN, Oh. J., Paxsost, Steeebtt, and Williams, JJ.
    Error to the Common Pleas No. 1 of Allegheny County to review the action of the court in refusing a mandamus execution to the assignee of a part of a judgment against a municipal corporation.
    Affirmed.
    Martin Schuck obtained a verdict against the city of Pittsburgh on March 22, 1887, in the sum of $400 as damages for personal injuries suffered through negligence of defendant’s officers in not keeping a board walk in repair. Judgment was duly entered on the verdict on May 13, 1887. On June 6, 1887, said Martin Schuck, plaintiff, assigned of record $150 of this judgment to John D. Potter. On July 14, 1887, the defendant city paid the full amount of the judgment to Martin Schuck, the plaintiff, or to his attorney, and declined to pay said assignee, John D. Potter. Said John D. Potter then petitioned the court on August 10, 1887, setting out above facts for a writ of mandamus execution, under the provisions of the act of April 15, 1834, directed to the city treasurer, to enforce the collection of his said judgment.
    The court refused to grant said writ of mandamus execution, and on September 14, 1887, discharged the rule to show cause why the same should not issue. To this action of the court in refusing to award said mandamus execution, said assignee excepted, and took the present writ of error, assigning as error the action of the court: (1) In refusing to award plaintiff a mandamus execution; (2) in discharging the rule to show cause why a mandamus execution should not issue; (3) in discharging the rule for a mandamus execution as follows: “Rule discharged; to which petitioner excepts, and bill sealed.”
    
      
      W. D. Moore and F. G. McGirr, for plaintiff in error.
    The eonrt refused to allow tbe nse plaintiff in tbis case to have execution against tbe defendant, on tbe ground, as orally stated, that a partial assignment of a claim against a municipality was of no validity, citing Philadelphia’s Appeal, 86 Pa. 179; and Geist’s Appeal, 104 Pa. 351.
    It is submitted that these cases are not in point, for there tbe claims assigned were to several persons, and were unliquidated; and those decisions go expressly on tbe ground that where a municipal corporation enters into an entire contract with one to do certain work, and tbe said contractor assigns portions of that contract to several others, tbe city is not bound to recognize the assignments, because of tbe uncertainty of tbe amounts that may be finally due each assignee; and if said assignees should disagree as to tbe amounts due each, “it would subject its officers to vexatious annoyances, and tbe city to litigation and costs. . . . A municipal corporation should not be subjected to tbe embarrassments, responsibilities, and costs of adjudicating contracts to which it was not a party.” Philadelphia’s Appeal, 86 Pa. 179.
    In the present case there is no uncertainty; tbe claim is liquidated ; it does not arise upon a contract, but is an assignment of record of an exact sum — part of a judgment obtained against the city for a tort.
    Where there is a judgment, the record is the proper place to give notice of its assignment. Coon v. Peed, 79 Pa. 240.
    Payment to plaintiff, after notice of the assignment of a judgment, is not payment to the proper person. Guthrie v.. Bashline, 25 Pa. 80.
    Under the decision of this court, in case of Monaghan v. Philadelphia, 28 Pa. 207, the petition in the present case for a mandamus execution directed to the city treasurer was tbe proper proceeding. And see Troubat & II. Pr. § 1467.
    There is no answer to tbe petition or to tbe rule to sbow cause, in tbis case.
    It is said in Com. ex rel. Goon v. Floyd, 2 Pittsb. 425, that the act of April 15, 1834, gives as a matter of right, a mandamus execution to enforce a judgment against a county; and in Mona-ghan v. Philadelphia, that it is tbe proper and only way to enforce a judgment against a city.
    
      
      W. C. Morelandj for defendant in error.
    Tbe assignee is a stranger on tbe record. Tbe city owes bim nothing. He can bave no claim, saving that arising from tbe voluntary act of tbe plaintiff or claimant. Is the city’bound to bunt up such persons and make investigation of matters wholly foreign to tbe litigation ?
    Is this partial assignment valid and binding upon tbe city ?
    In Philadelphia’s Appeal, 86 Pa. 179, this court said: “Tbe question now presented is whether such a corporation (municipal) is bound to recognize an assignment of a part only of its obligation. If it must one uncertain part, we see no just reason why it must not as many parts as tbe convenience or whim of the obligee shall induce bim to assign. Tbe probable and natural effect of bolding tbe municipality liable to each assignee would subject its officers to vexatious annoyances and the city to litigation and costs. . . . Tbe policy of tbe law is against permitting tbe individuals, by their private contracts, to embarrass tbe financial officers of a municipality. ... A municipal corporation should not be subjected to tbe embarrassments, responsibilities, and costs of adjudicating contracts to which it was not a party.”
    Tbe same doctrine is laid down by this court in Geist’s Appeal, 104 Pa. 354.
   Per Curiam:

Prom all that we bave before us, in this case, we cannot say that the court erred in refusing tbe mandamus prayed for.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.  