
    M'Lean against Whiting.
    Separate suits were brought against A. and Bo, two joint obligors on a bond, ataíments|> and a ^r”'gainst B. for the costs taxed inlhe suit against him, and not for the instalment, from discharged after pattnSwaSe "held dl¿' f™,m ^ c°-osst“wa^° discharge ligor, nor a satisfaction of the debt for which soned?5 imp'‘
    H. BLEECKER, for the defendant, moved that he _ . be discharged from imprisonment, on a ca. sa. issued m this cause.
    The affidavit of the defendant stated, that he was sued by bill, on a bond executed by him and Daniel Powers, by which they were, jointly and severally, bound to the . J plaintiff in. 450 dollars, conditioned to pay 221 dollars _ . and 87 cents, by instalments of 55 dollars each; that a judgment was confessed for the penalty; that only one instalment was due when the suit was commenced, and two only when judgment was entered; that the ant was taken on a ca. sa. for 117 dollars; that a suit was commenced upon the same bond against Powers, and judgment entered, by confession, for the penalty; that seJ 1 J veral bills of costs were taxed in the suits, and that since the defendant had been taken on the ca. sa. Powers had been also taken on a ca. sa., and the attorney for the plaintiff had received from him satisfaction of the execution, either in money or its equivalent, and had discharged him from imprisonment.
    Paine, contra,
    read an affidavit, which stated that several judgments were obtained against the defendant and 
      Powers; that a fi. fa. was issued against Powers, for the two instalments which were payable, and for the costs taxed against him, on which nulla bona was returned); that on the ca. sa. against the defendant, the sheriff was ordered to collect the said two instalments and interest, but no part of the taxed costs; that, afterwards, a ca. ■sa. was issued against Powers for the costs taxed against him, only, and the amount of these only was the sheriff ordered to collect with his fees, but no part of the instalments ; that Powers, on paying the costs, was discharged from custody, but no further release was intended.
   Per Curiam.

. The defendant, Whiting, is charged in execution, for two of the instalments, but not for any costs, and Powers was charged in execution only for the costs of the suit against him. His discharge from these costs does not, and ought not, to affect the execution against Whiting; for the demands were distinct, and Whiting was never answerable for those costs. The rule that a release of one co-obligor from his debt, or a discharge of one co-obligor from execution, should enure-as a release or discharge of all, is founded upon the just principle, that the party should not receive more than one satisfaction for the same debt, but that principle is -inapplicable to this case. The discharge of Powers from his costs was no satisfaction of the debt for which Whiting was imprisoned; the motion is therefore denied-.

Motion denied.  