
    APRIL TERM, 1771.
    Waters against Caton.
    
      WATERS, in an action of debt on a bond, obtained judgment against Catón, for 400/. to execute which, Waters sued out a fieri facias, and subsequent to the issuing of the fieri facias, on the same day he sued out an attachment on the same judgment. Part of the judgment was levied on each execution.
    Motion was made on behalf of the defendant, to quash the attachment.
    
      S. Chase, for defendant.
    When one execution is sued out, another execution cannot issue on the same judgment before the return of the first, because the second ought to recite the first, and how much of the debt is satisfied, and what remains unsatisfied. 1 Stra. 226. Salk. 318. Gilb. Exec. 24, 25, 26. cites Cro. Eliz. 344. Gilb. Exec. 70, 71.
    
      fiohmon, contra.
    There would be a great inconvenience, if after a capias ad satisfaciendum had issued without effect, no attachment could issue till it was returned, as others might attach the effects, and a prior judgment would remain unsatisfied, whilst the effects of the defendant would be swept away by attachments issued subsequent to such judgment.
    The law respecting executions, was formerly very rigorous, and where the party elected one process to obtain, execution of a judgment, he could not resort to another. 2 Inst. 395. That rigour has since been much mollified, and now where the plaintiff has obtained no satisfaction by elegir, after the return of it, he may have other process. 2 Raym. 1451. Where a man takes out two different executions, he cannot execute both. 8 Mod. 302. If a man has lands in two different counties, and takes two elegits at the same time, it is regular. 1 Stra. 462. cites also 1 Barn. Notes, 132. 138. 2 Barn. Notes, 169. 174. The Court may see and know by calculation, on the return of both the writs, how much was to be levied by the first.
    
      S. Chase, in reply.
    Where there are two executions, and both are in part executed, the Court will quash the last, for though a man may issue two executions, he must execute but one.
   The Court determined, that the issuing of two executions upon the same judgment, to the same County, was. irregular, and therefore quashed the attachment.  