
    [Philadelphia,
    March 30, 1832.]
    MIFFLIN, assignee of WISTAR and another creditors of MIFFLIN against RASEY and Wife executors of HILL.
    A judgment given by one of two joint assignors of real estate for the benefit of creditors, to the other, prior to their assignment, must be postponed to the debts provided for by the assignment, though the judgment has been subsequently transferred to one, who, with notice of the assignment, paid value for it.
    This case came before the court on exceptions filed to the report of an auditor appointed to distribute the money arising from the sale of the real estate of John Hill deceased, the" defendant’s testator, under a mortgage given by him to John F. Mifflin, upon which a.wire 
      
      facias was sued out by Sarah Mifflin assignee of the executors of the mortgagee. The fund to be distributed was the balance which remained after satisfying this mortgage.
    It appeared that John Hill died in the year 1812, leaving a widow, Letitia Hill, and three children, viz. Martin, William and John.
    
    On the 19th of December, 1816, judgment was entered in favour of Letitia Hill against William Hill for four thousand dollars upon a bond by virtue of a warrant of attorney.
    On the 28th of August 1818, Letitia Hill and William Hill assigned the premises in question to trustees, their executors and administrators in trust to pay out of the rents and profits thereof certain creditors therein named, the amount of their respective debts; the assignment to be null and void after the payment of those debts, and the premises assigned to revert to the assignor.
    The trustees entered into the premises and continued to receive the rents and pay the creditors until the sale of the premises under the mortgage above mentioned, which took place in the year 1831. The first class of creditors had then been paid in full, but the others had received nothing.
    In the year 1821 the judgment of Letitia Hill against William Hill was revived by amicable scire facias, and in the year 1826, another scire facias issued upon the same judgment in the name of Letitia Hill for the use of Martin HiU, but no other evidence of Martin’s interest in the judgment was produced. These scire faciases of]821 and 1826 were not served on the trustees or on any other person than William HiU the defendant, and judgment was entered against him for want of an appearance.
    Under the judgment obtained in the scire facias last issued, “the right, title and interest” of William HiU in the premises, was levied on and sold by the sheriff and purchased for the sum of twenty-five dollars by Martin HiU, to whom the sheriff acknowledged a deed on the 10th of March 1828.
    
      Martin HiU had previously purchased all his brother John’s interest in the premises, at sheriff’s sale, for the sum of one hundred and seventy dollars. No claimant appeared before the auditor for the interest of John HiU, except Martin HiU.
    
    The auditor reported, “ That the judgment of Letitia HiU of the 19th of December 1816, being anterior to the assignment and regularly kept alive to execution and sale, was- a lien overreaching the assignment and is entitled to be paid to the exclusion of the creditors under the assignment.”
    To this report of the auditor the creditors excepted,
    
      First, “Because the judgment was nota lien regularly revived, so as to entitle Martin Hill to receive the proceeds in court that would be coming to William Hill
    
    
      Second, “ Because any enforcement of the judgment by Letitia HiU or Martin HiU, having notice, would be a fraud on the creditors under the assignment.
    
      
      Third, “ Because the trustees of Letitia Hill for the payment of debts are entitled to receive whatever is set apart by the auditor as the interest of William Hill in the moneys in court.”
    These exceptions were argued by Purdon for the creditors, and by Arundel for Martin Hill.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Gibson, C. J.

An assignment to trustees for payment of debts, passes the whole interest of the assignors, whether joint or separate, actual or contingent. The judgment of Letitia Hill v. William Hill, even in the hands of one who had paid value for it, is therefore not entitled to take precedence of their joint assignment, passing, as it did, every incidental or derivative interest necessary to impart to the fund its utmost power of productiveness. As regards .a resulting interest after payment of the debts, if any such had remained, this judgment like any other security between the assignors themselves, would have remained unaffected; but their creditors claiming by title paramount, are entitled to the utmost estate or interest which the assignors, or either of them, have in the property, so far as is necessary to the business of satisfaction. The exception to the report of the auditor in this particular, must therefore be allowed.

Decree accordingly.  