
    Rauh et al., Partners as Rauh Bros. & Co. v. Aknovitch and Levy & Co.
    
      Execution against property — No preferences on judgments sued out in same term — Filing of transcripts — Sections 5S77 and 5382, Revised Statutes.
    
    Section 5382 of the Revised Statutes, providing that 11 when two or more writs of execution against the same debtor are sued out during the term in which judgment was rendered * * * no preference shall be given to either of such writs * * *, ” applies alike to executions issued on transcripts of judgments of justices of the peace filed in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas under section 5377 and to those issued on judgments of the court of common pleas.
    (Decided January 27, 1899;)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Jefferson county.
    This case involves the right of Levy & Company to participate in the distribution of the proceeds of chattels sold by the sheriff of Jefferson county as the property of Joseph B. Aknovitch being all the property which he possessed. The contending parties are execution creditors of Aknovitch and their rights depend upon this state of facts: On the fourteenth of January, 1896, Rauh Bros. & Co. recovered a judgment against Aknovitch in the court of common pleas for the sum of $1,401.60* On the same day execution on that judgment was issued and levied upon the chattels of Aknovitch. On the fifteenth day of January one Abe Aknovitch recovered a judgment against Joseph B. Aknovitch in the same court for the sum of $901.00 upon which execution was issued and levied on the same day upon the same goods and chattels. On the fifteenth day of January, 1896, one Moses Esaeovitch recovered a judgment against Joseph B. Aknovitch in the same court for the sum of $560 upon which execution was also issued and levied on the same day upon the same goods and chattels. All of said judgments were rendered upon notes with warrants of attorney attached for the confession of judgment. On the twenty-first of January, 1896, Levy' & Co. ■ recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace of Jeffetson county for the sum of $205.75, and on the same day filed a transcript of such judgment with the clerk of the court of common pleas of Jefferson county which was by him on that day duly entered on the execution docket in his office, and • on the same day said clerk at the instance of Levy & Co. issued an execution upon said judgment to the sheriff of said county, and the sheriff on the same day levied that execution upon the same goods and chattels. The January term of the court of common pleas of Jefferson county commenced on the sixth day of January, 1896, and closed on the fifteenth day of February. On the twenty-seventh day of January, 1896, the chattels so taken upon execution by the sheriff were sold for the sum of $1,314.
    Upon these facts the court of common pleas ordered a distribution of the proceeds of sale after the payment of costs to all the judgment creditors, including Levy & Co., in proportion to the amounts of their demands, and its judgment was affirmed by the circuit court.
    
      John M. Cook, for plaintiff in error.
    
      P. P. Lewis, for Levy & Co.
   By the Court:

It is provided in section 5382 that “when two or more writs of execution against the same debtor are sued out during the term in which judgment was rendered * * * , no preference shaíl be given to either of such writs ; but if a sufficient sum of money be not made to satisfy all executions, the amount made shall be distributed to the several creditors in proportion to the amounts of their respective demands.” Section 5377 authorizes one who recovers a judgment before a justice of the peace to file in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas a transcript thereof. The effect of such filing with respect to the seizure of the chattels of the debtor is defined in section 5379: “Execution may be issued on such judgment at any time after filing the transcript as if the judgment had been rendered in court.”

With respect to the issuance of execution, the effect and the return thereof, executions issued by the clerk upon such transcripts are placed upon the same footing with those issued upon judgments of the court of common pleas. Nothing’ inconsistent with the judgment below was decided in Meier & Co. et al., v. Bank et al., 55 Ohio St., 446.

Judgment affirmed.  