
    [Lancaster,
    May 24, 1826.]
    REIGART against HIX and another, Administrators of MOYER.
    IN ERROR.
    
      W. was bound as surety for 12., in a bond to M. B., having brought suit against S., S. paid to M. the amount due on B’s, bond to him, and took the bond with a view to set it oft' in the suit brought against him by B., and an agreement was indorsed upon the bond, that the money should be repaid by M., if the set off was not allowed. On the trial of the action, upon the agreement, brought by S. against M. to recover back the money paid by the former to the latter, in which the principal question was, whether the set off had been allowed, W., the surety, was held not to be a competent witness for the defendant, being directly interested in the event of the suit.
    This case was brought before the court on a writ of error to the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon county, in admitting the evidence of a certain Thomas Wenrich, who was offered as a witness by the defendants below, who* were also defendants in error, and objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff, on the ground of interest.
    The action was brought upon a writing in these words:
    “Received, Jlpril 13th, 1816, from Daniel Reigart, the within bond and interest in full, which I promise to repay on demand, if not allowed at the trial. (Signed) Jacob Moyer.”
    
    The following were the circumstances of the case: — One Peter Radebach had, on the 1st of May, 1814, given a bond to the said Jacob Moyer, conditioned for the payment of one hundred and sixty-two pounds, nine shillings and ten pence, in which the said Thomas Wenrich was surety. Reigart, the plaintiff, had purchased of Radebach a plantation, and given him certain bonds for the purchase money. Some one or more of these bonds Radebach had transferred to J. Doll and J. Chase, who brought suit in the name of Radebach for their use, against Reigart, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Before the trial of that cause came on, Reigart received from Jacob Moyer the first mentioned bond, for one hundred and sixty-two pounds, nine shillings and ten pence; and paid the full amount of principal and interest then due to Moyer, who indorsed upon the bond the writing upon which this suit was brought. The principal question on the trial was, whether Beigart had been allowed the amount of the bond, on the trial of the action brought against him by Doll and Chase, the .'plaintiff averring that it was not allowed, and the defendants that it was. The defendants called Thomas Wenrich as a witness, who was objected to by- the plaintiff, on the ground, that being surety in the bond, he was interested in the event of the suit. After argument, the court admitted the witness and sealed a bill of exceptions.
    
      Weidman, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited 1 Phill. Ev. 36.
    ■ Fisher, for the defendants in error.
    The witness was called to prove a matter in which he had no interest, viz. the consideration of the bond, and therefore he was competent. Patterson v. Willing, 3 Dali. 506. By the agreement of the 13th of Jlpril, 1816, between Moyer and Beigart, Moyer was precluded from bringing suit against Badebach, the principal in the bond; and if the obligee puts it out of his power to bring suit against the principal, he thereby discharges the surety. Cope v. Smith, 8 Serg. & Bawle, 112. Bathbone v. Warren, 10 Johns. 587. United States v. Hil-legas’s Executors, Whart. Dig. 272. pi. 13.
    
      Wright, in reply.
    If the witness was interested in the event of the suit, as he clearly was, he was incompetent to give any evidence in the cause. The agreement between Moyer and Beigart could have no effect on the obligors in the bond. There was no privity between the obligors and the parties tp that agreement. The obligors remained liable, and Wenrich was offered as a witness to prove that the bond in which he wás bound as surety was satisfied. He therefore had a direct interest in the event of the-suit. The object of the agreement, was to enable Beigart to obtain payment from Badebach, the principal in the bond, by discounting it against him; an arrangement greatly for the interest of Wenrich.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

This was an action on the case, brought by-Daniel Beigart against the administrators of Jacob Moyer, deceased. On the trial of the cause, the defendants offered Thomas Wenrich as a witness, who was objected to by the plaintiff as incompetent on account of interest. The court admittéd the witness, and an exception was taken to their opinion. Whether Wenrich waS a competent witness is the question, and that will depend on certain facts stated in the bill of exceptions. Wenrich was bound as security for a certain Peter Badebach, in a bond for one hundred and sixty-two pounds, nine shillings and ten pence, to the said Jacob Moyer, of whom the defendants are administrators. Beigart, the plaintiff, had purchased land from Badebach, and given him his bonds for the purchase money. One or more of these bonds Radebach had assigned to two persons, of the name of Doll and Chase, who had brought suit against Reigart, in the name of Radebach, for their use. Reigart, supposing that if he was possessed of Radebach’s bond to Moyer, (in which Wenrich was security,) he could make use of if as a set off in the action brought against him. for the use of Chase and Doll, agreed with Moyer for the purchase of the said bond, on which Moyer gave him a writing indorsed on the bond, of which the following is a copy: — “Received, April 13th, 1816, of Daniel Reigart, the within bond and interest in full, which I promise to repay on demand, if not allowed at the trial, (signed) Jacob Moyer.” The writing is not clearly expressed, but the meaning is, that unless Reigart could make use of Radebach's bond to Moyer, in which Wenrich was security, as a set off in the action brought against him in the name of Radebach, for the use of Doll and Chase, Moyer should refund the money received by him from Reigart. Reigart averred that the set off was not allowed him, and therefore brought this action against the administrators of Moyer, founded on the writing before mentioned. The defendants, on the contrary, asserted that the set off had been allowed to Reigart, on the trial of the suit for the use of Dolt and Chase, -and on that fact the present action turned. Now, if the plaintiff recovered in this suit, the property in the bond of Radebach and Wenrich to Moyer, would be revested in Moyer’s administrators, who might recover on it against Wenrich. Wenrich, therefore, had a direct interest in the event of the present action, because, if the plaintiff was defeated, the administrators of Moyer could support no action against Wenrich, their intestate having received full satisfaction from Rei-gart for the bond in which Wenrich was bound as security for Radebach. Neither could Reigart support an action in the name of Moyer’s administrators for his use, because he had received satisfaction by the set off allowed him in the action brought in the name of Radebach for the use of Chase and Doll. The facts are complicated, but, when fully understood, the interest of Wenrich in the event of this suit, is manifest. I am of opinion, therefore, that he was not a competent witness. The judgment is to be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.  