
    JANUARY TERM, 1844.
    Curtis Wood, et al. v. James B. Robinson, Executor, &c.
    A sheriff has no authority whatever to receive payments for a plaintiff, or take property, without an operative execution in his hands. The authority he receives by an execution ceases at the return term.
    Payments made to a sheriff in a depreciated currency, do not amount to a satisfaction of the execution, and are not binding on the plaintiff; especially when he has given instructions to the sheriff to receive nothing but gold and silver.
    James B. Robinson, executor of Raymond Robinson, on the 8th day of December, 1838, recovered a judgment in Claiborne Circuit Court, against Curtis Wood, for $2120.16. On the 12th of December, 1838, a fi. fa. was issued, returnable to the May term, 1839. This fi. fa. was levied on slaves, and a forthcoming bond given, which was forfeited. On the 6th of August, 1839, a fi. fa. was issued on the forfeited forthcoming bond, on which the sheriff made no return. On the 31st of August, 1841, an alias fi. fa., was issued on the forfeited forthcoming bond, and levied on the property of the defendant, who, on petition for that purpose, obtained a supersedeas and writ of error coram nobis, returnable before said Circuit Court at November term, 1841.
    The writ of error coram nobis was not issued, and no further proceedings appear to have been had upon it.
    At the May term, 1842, a motion was made by the defendants to enter satisfaction on the execution, because the money had been paid on the execution, to May term, 1840, and the execution satisfied. At the same time, a motion was made by the plaintiff to discharge the supersedeas, and dismiss the petition.
    These motions came on to be heard together. On the trial, the defendant, in support of his motion to enter satisfaction, read, in evidence to the point, a receipt of the sheriff of Claiborne county, in the following words, to wit : ,
    
      
      u James B. Robinson, executor of Raymond Robinson, v. Curtis Wood and Jilo a Frisby.
    
    Judgment, 4th Dec. 1838, $2124.26
    Interest, 254.89
    Plaintiff’s money, j$2379.15
    Costs endorsed on execution, 45.77
    Sheriff’s commissions, 38.98
    Entry, levy, and return, 2.00
    $2465.80
    Credit, by cash, of J. O. Pierson, ‡808.13
    Interest, ■ 21.55
    Cash of G. W. Reynolds, 20 Feb. 1840, 1400.00
    Interest, 37.33
    Cash by G. W. Reynolds, June 6,1840, 198.79
    - $2465.80
    “ Received, June 6, 1840, of George W. Reynolds, the sum of one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and seventy-nine cents, as above stated, in full satisfaction of the above stated execution.
    R. J. Bland, Sheriff.
    
    By M. O. Hopkins, D. Sheriff
    
    The plaintiff then proved, by M. O. Hopkins, that he was deputy under Bland, and as such made the settlement of the execution of Robinson, executor &c. v. Wood et al., with G. W. Reynolds, who acted for Wood, on the 6th of June, 1840, and gave the receipt of that date ; that the credit of $808.13, mentioned in said receipt, was for an order given by Wood on J. O. Pierson & Co. ; that he did not know whether the order was paid or not, but he knew the amount was passed to the, credit of Bland, the sheriff, on the books of J. O. Pierson & Co.; that he saw it so credited after Bland’s death. He knows the order was given to Bland some time before the commencement of the May term, 1840, of said Court. No money passed at the time of the settlement of June 6th, 1840. He was directed by the sheriff to allow it as a credit on the execution. Witness stated that Bland got some cotton of Wood, and was to apply the money on this execution. The final settlement of the execution was made between witness and G. W. Reynolds, acting for Wood. Reynolds produced the receipt of M. W. Bland, deputy sheriff, for about $1100 or $1200, which, with some store accounts of Reynolds,„against R. J. Bland and his mother, Mrs. Coursey, made up the item of $>1400, credited in the receipt. The balance, of about $198,'was paid by appropriating that amount out'of money then in the sheriff’s hands, belonging to Reynolds, collected on executions in his favor. Witness did not know whether Bland bought the cotton of Wood, or whether it was to be sold on his account. The transaction must have taken place February 20, 1840, but witness cannot explain it particularly. The collections the sheriff made at that time were principally in Union money, though Wood did not know what kind of money he received. J. O. Pierson & Co. were owing Bland at his death, in September, 1840, according to their statement, $1500 or $2000 ; Bland thought they owed him $8,000 or $10,000.
    Plaintiff also proved by William Robinson, that after the May Court, 1840, he called on Bland for the money in this case, but could not get it : Hopkins told him J. O. Pierson & Go. owed Bland a balance not paid over.
    Maxwell W. Bland’ testified that, as deputy sheriff, he was directed to go to G. W. Reynolds, and receive some money on this execution ; that he went, and received about $ 1200 in Grand Gulf money, and gave a receipt for it on account of this execution ; this was early in 1840. He changed the money, and paid over most of it in notes of the Agricultural Bank, which were at a discount. He also took up some accounts against R. J. Bland, Mrs. Cour-sey, and himself, amounting to about $150.
    William Bridewell stated, that he bought twelve or thirteen bales of .Wood’s cotton of Reynolds, in the spring of 1840.
    Wilson F. Dillon was then called by defendant, who stated, that early in 1840, in Bland’s office, he heard Wood tell Bland that he had some cotton (thinks thirty-five bales) in the hands of Reynolds, at Grand Gulf, with which he wanted to make a payment on this execution of J. B. Robinson against him. It was then understood between Bland and Wood, that Bland was to take the cotton, and send some person to Grand Gulf to take charge of it. Wood told Bland the cotton was at the Gulf, subject to his order on said execution.
    The plaintiff then produced in Court the sheriff’s execution docket, on which was written in pencil, in the handwriting of plaintiff, these words, to wit: “Nothing but gold and silver, or good New Orleans funds, to be taken in payment of this execution. J. B. Robinson ; ” and also these words, in the handwriting of M. O. Hopkins, deputy sheriff, “ Satisfied Feb. 20, 1840. R. J. Bland ; ” which was all the evidence given.
    The Court overruled the motion for entry of satisfaction, and sustained the motion of plaintiff to discharge the supersedeas, and dismiss the petition ; and these decisions are brought up by writ of error, for revision by this Court.
    Two errors were assigned, to wit:
    1st. The Court below erred in overruling the motion made by the defendant, to have satisfaction of said execution entered; the same having been paid.
    2d. The Court below erred in sustaining the motion of the plaintiff, to discharge the supersedeas, and dismiss the petition of the defendants.
    
      II. T. Ellett, for plaintiffs in error.
    Motion was made in the Court below to have satisfaction entered of the judgment in this case, which motion the Court overruled.
    In support of the motion, the defendant below produced the sheriff’s receipt for the amount of the judgment and costs, stating particularly the time and manner of the several payments. The plaintiff introduced evidence to disprove these payments, and the sheriff’s receipt being good prima facie evidence, the cause turned entirely upon the sufficiency of the evidence offered to defeat it. The receipt contains three items, each of which will be considered.
    I. “Cash of J. O. Pierson, $808.13.”
    The evidence as to this item is, that Wood gave the sheriff an order on J. O. Pierson & Co. for that sum, and that they passed the amount to the credit of the sheriff on their books; that the sheriff kept an account with J. O. Pierson & Co., and at his death they owed him $1500 or $2000, while he thought they owed him $8,000 or $10,000.
    There is no doubt but Wood thus parted with $808.13 of his money, and the objection made is, that it is not shown that J. O. Pierson & Co. actually counted down the money to the sheriff on the order. But it is answered, that it does not appear that they did not. The deputy sheriff does not know whether it was paid or not; but the sheriff says it was paid, for he directs a credit on the execution for so much “ cash.”
    But it is not necessary that the money should f be counted out to the sheriff. The defendant gives the sheriff a check on his banker for the money. The sheriff takes it to the banker, with whom he keeps his own money, and has the amount charged to the defendant, and passed to his own credit in account. The transaction is a familiar one, and it cannot be doubted that it was a good payment to the sheriff.
    II. The second item is, “Cash of G. W. Reynolds, Feb. 20, 1840, $1400.”
    The proof as to this item is, that Wood went to the sheriff’s office, and told him he had thirty-five bales of cotton at Grand Gulf, subject to his control by virtue of this execution ; that the sheriff agreed to receive it at Grand Gulf, and promised to send some person to take charge of it; and that Wood left, him with the understanding that the sheriff took the cotton, and was to dispose of it. Subsequently, the sheriff sent his deputy, 1$J. W. Bland, to Reynolds, the agent of the defendant Wood, at Grand Gulf, to receive the money, and that he received $1200 in Grand Gulf money.
    This was a seizure by the sheriff of thirty-five bales of defendant’s cotton ; was, in substance, a levy, and the proceeds were a proper credit on the execution, whether the sheriff ever received the money or not,
    But whether it amounted to a levy or not, still the payment of the $1200 by Reynolds, was a good payment. The only objection to it is, that it was made in Grand Gulf money. It does not appear what is meant by “ Grand Gulf money ; ” whether notes of the Grand Gulf Railroad and Banking Company ; or shinplasters issued by the corporation of Grand Gulf, or its citizens ; or gold and silver coin, current at Grand Gulf. Will the Court attempt to fix a meaning to the expression ?
    If, as is contended on the other side, Grand Gulf Bank notes are intended, there is no proof in the record that these notes were ever below par. True, the deputy changed the money, and paid the sheriff notes of the Agricultural Bank, which were at a discount, but this cannot prejudice the defendant. ,
    The simple question then is, was it lawful for the defendant to pay the execution in bank notes ?
    Lord Mansfield says, “Bank notes'cannot be compared to goods, or to'isecurities, or documents for debts; but are treated constantly and universally, at home and abroad, as money, as cash. Miller v. Race, 1 Bun. 452 ; 3 Durn. & East, 554 ; 12 John. 220, 395 ; 5 Wend. 61 ; 2 Wfend. 327 ; 13 East, 20 ; Cbitty on Bills, 555 ; 9 John. 120.
    A sheriff may receive current bank notes, contrary to express instructions. 4 Cowen, 420.
    In this case it is expressly proved, that “Wood did not know what kind of money the sheriff received.” . He delivered his cotton to his merchant, the produce of his toil; the sheriff received it there, it passed from Wood’s control, and the sheriff received afterwards from the merchant the money which he chose to have. Wood acted throughout in the most perfect good faith, and the law will be a mockery of justice if he shall be compelled to pay the debt over again.
    About $200 of this credit of $1400 appears to have been paid by Reynolds, by receipting some accounts against the sheriff, and his mother, and deputy, which were equivalent to cash to him, and a large portion of the amount thus settled was due him for his fees and costs.
    III. The third item is, “ Cash by G. W. Reynolds, June 6, 1840, $198.79.”
    . The two first items were paid before the return day of the execution. This last is dated June 6, 1840, after the return day. But it was a mere application of money which he ’ had previously collected for Reynolds, 'and had then in his hands.
    
      The execution was returnable the fourth Monday of May, 1840, and the receipt is dated June 6, a few days after. But it is fully shown by the testimony, that all the money-came into the sheriff’s hands before the return day. The true question is, when was the money paid ? not, when was the receipt given ? -
    The secret of the whole matter is, that the sheriff collected the plaintiff’s money, and spent it. But the defendant cannot be compelled to suffer for his misconduct. 2 Ld. Raym. 1072 ; 4 Mass. 463 ; 7 John. 428 ; 12 ib. 207.
    It is therefore submitted, that the judgment ought to be reversed.
    Thrasher, for defendant in error.
    Execution upon a forfeited bond, issued to the November term, 1841, of the Claiborne Circuit Court, which was levied on certain negro slaves of the defendant, Curtis Wood, and superseded upon the petition of the defendants to the circuit judge ; setting out, among other things, that the defendant, Wood, through his merchant, had paid to the sheriff a large portion of the execution in money ; and that he, the defendant, had delivered to the sheriff property sufficient to pay the balance, and that the execution ought to have been returned satisfied. The petition prayed, that the Court would order satisfaction to be entered on the execution. At the November term, 1841, the defendant, Wood, filed a bill of discovery, which was answered', and the facts charged in the bill denied by the plaintiff, James B. Robins'on, who moved the Court, at the May term, 1842, to discharge the supersedeas, and to dismiss the writ of error coram n.obis.
    
    1. Because the same had improvidently issued without a legal showing.
    2. That the grievance, or error complained of, was payment of the execution after the rendition of the judgment, when the remedy, if any, was by writ of audita querela. 1 Jacob’s Law Die. 176, 178. The defendants also moved the Court, at the same time, to enter satisfaction on the execution ; but the Court overruled the petition and motion of the defendants, that satisfaction be entered on the execution, and sustained the motion of the plaintiff, and ordered the supersedeas to be discharged, and the writ of error dismissed.
    The only legitimate question for this Court to determine is, whether a previous fieri fiadas on the bond had been paid, discharged, and satisfied to Bland, the former sheriff. To determine this question, it first becomes necessary to examine the evidence of payment, as set out in the bill of exceptions.
    In this examination, we are first met with a receipt signed “ R. J. Bland, sheriff. By M. O. Hopkins, D. sheriff.” This receipt contains a statement of the case, showing various credits by which the execution was supposed to be satisfied, to wit,' — “ by cash of J. O. Pierson & Co., $808.13 “interest $21.55 “20th February, by cash of Geo. W. Reynolds, $1400 “interest$37.33 “cash of Reynolds, $128.79.” The receipt is dated 6th June, 1840, after the execution had spent its operative force, and the return day had expired. The sheriff, therefore, had no power or authority to receive money on the execution at that time, and his receipt will not discharge the defendants. 5 Lit. Rep. 19 ; Barton v. Lockhart, 2 Stewart & Porter, Rep. 109 ; 5 Howard’s Rep. 246, 621. In the case of Stephens v. Boswell, 2 J. J. Marshall, 30, the Court say : “ If an officer collect money after the return day of an execution, and indorse that he has received it, and make return of the execution, as in other cases, his act is unofficial. The plaintiff may affirm the act; or he may proceed against the defendant, and recover his demand by further execution.” 1 Pirtle’s Dig. 416. The Court will judicially take notice that the return day of the execution had expired on the 6th of June, 1840. “ Courts will judicially take notice of the commencement of the terms of Court, the day of the month, and the course of time.” G'reenleaf on Evidence, p. 7.
    But the principle is well settled, that a receipt is an exception to the general rule, that a writing cannot be explained or contradicted by parol. 1 Johns. Cas. 145 ; 2 Johns. Rep. 378 ; 5 Johns. 72 ; 9 Johns. Rep. 310 ; Greenleaf on Evidence, 353. The testimony of Mr. Hopkins, and other witnesses, to the same,point, in connection with this receipt, explains each and every item, and shows, beyond doubt, that neither of the items specified in the receipt was a ilegal payment on the execution. The first item is cash of J. O. Pierson & Co., $808.13. M. O. Hopkins deposed that, as a deputy of Bland, he gave the receipt; that the credit of $808.13 was for an order on J. O. Pierson & Co.; that it was passed to the credit of Bland on the books of J. O. Pierson & Co., but whether it was paid or not, he did not know ; he was directed to allow the order as a credit in the settlement : no money passed at the time. J. O. Pierson & Co. owed Bland, at his death, according to their own books, §1500 or $2000 ; but that Bland thought they owed him §10,000. James B. Robinson, in his answer to the bill of discovery (which is legal evidence in the case), swears that J. O. Pier-son & Co', had not paid the order at Bland’s death, and that they never did pay it; that they, Pierson & Co., were insolvent, and bad paymasters. To this, add the testimony of Wm. Robinson, that he called on Bland for the money on the day after May Court, 1840, and could not get it ,• that Hopkins, the deputy sheriff, told him, as a reason for not paying the execution, that J. O. Pierson & Co. owed Bland money, which they had not paid over. The evidence therefore is conclusive, that the sheriff never did receive this §808.13 on the execution.
    The next item in the receipt is, “ cash of G. W. Reynolds.” This item is composed of $1200, received of G. W. Reynolds by Maxwell Bland, deputy sheriff, in Grand Gulf money, and the balance of the $1400 item was store accounts against Mrs. Coursey and other persons. The Grand Gulf money was at a discount; and, lastly, the item of $198.79 cash of Reynolds was never paid ; it was put into the receipt as a balance necessary to make up the amount of the execution, to be supplied from money collected by the sheriff for Reynolds on other executions ; a part of the sheriff’s defalcations to Reynolds, added into the receipt nominally, to pay Robinson, or rather to defraud Robinson ; the items of §21.58 and §37.33, interest on money which was never either paid to Bland or received by Robinson, a devise in fraud to make up the amount of the execution, is too shallow to merit comment.
    The return day of the execution had expired at the time the pretended settlement was made, and the sheriff had no execution in his hands. Robinson, the plaintiff, had given notice to Wood, the defendant (see answer to bill of discovery), that nothing but gold and silver, or good New Orleans funds, would be received in payment of the execution. The same notice had been given to the sheriff. The plaintiff had written in the sheriff’s docket opposite the execution in his own handwriting, that nothing but gold and silver, or New Orleans funds, was to be received in payment; and Hopkins, who made the settlement, deposed that no money was paid ; that no money passed at the time the account was receipted in discharge of the execution.
    In the case of The Bank of Orange County v. Wákeman, 1 Cowen, 46, the sheriff received part of an execution in money, and took a promissory note for • the balance, and returned the execution satisfied ; on motion 'by the defendant to enter satisfaction on the record of the judgment, it was refused, on the ground that the conduct of the sheriff “ was not in the regular course of his official duties.” “ The plaintiff was not bound by it,” say the Court. In the case of Munford v. Armstrong, reported in 4 Cowen, 553, the Court recognize the case in 1 Cowen, 46, as law, and say : £C The sheriff could receive nothing in payment but money or its equivalent.” The same principle is settled in 5 Johns. 72.
    The order, therefore, on J. O. Pierson, was not money. The Grand Gulf Bank bills at a discount, and store accounts against the sheriff and others, amounting to $1400, received in opposition to positive instructions, were equally illegal. But we cannot recognize, however, the receipt of the sheriff, as an official return of satisfaction on the execution, which was not in his hands ; but, even if considered an official return, yet it is not conclusive. Gilbert on Executions, 17 ; 2 Wend. 416 ; 5 Wend. 207 ; 2 Paige, 418 ; 1 Bibb, 475.
    
      James H. Maury, in reply.
    That the plaintiffs might have obtained relief by audita querela is probable, but furnishing no reason against the attainment of the same end by motion, which in modern practice is substituted in the place of the audita querela.
    
    The remarks of defendant’s counsel upon the evidence contained in the answer of Robinson are inapplicable. Because the answer is not only not contained in the bill of exceptions, but the indorse-ments on it show that neither the petition or answer were read in evidence.
    All the evidence that was heard on the trial of the motion was that furnished by the sheriff’s receipt, the entry of satisfaction on the sheriff’s docket, and the testimony of witnesses.
    The receipt exhibits a statement of the several payments that had been made at different times, prior to its date, and on the day of its date acknowledges payment of the balance due on the execution, amounting then to $¡198.79. The payment of this balance after the return day of the writ, if indeed it was then paid, cannot affect the payments previously made while the writ was in full force.
    There is no evidence of collusion between the plaintiff in error and the sheriff. They adopted a very usual and unexceptionable mode of settlement; and if the sheriff, after completing the transaction with the plaintiff, transcended his authority, the consequences are not chargeable on the plaintiff.
    If the plaintiff had given his check on a bank, and the sheriff, instead of recéiving the money as he might have done, had directed it to his credit in his bank account, such direction would have been .exclusively the act of the sheriff, and would have been equivalent to a cash deposit by the sheriff: and any balance that might be due the sheriff on a final settlement of their money account could not be attributable to any particular deposit. The transaction is not substantially different where a sheriff receives money on an execution through the agency of an individual who happens to be the factor of the payor and the banker of the sheriff. I hold therefore, that the payment of $808.13, made to the sheriff through Pierson, ought to be credited on the execution against the plaintiff in error. The money passed from him to the sheriff, and the transaction is the same as if he had received the dollars and poured them into his chest. If the chest in such case should prove deficient, the defalcation would fall exclusively on the sheriff as to the $1400 that passed through the hands of Reynolds. The evidence of Dillon, to which I invite the particular attention of the Court, shows that it was raised by the sheriff, by the sale of cotton which he had received from the plaintiff. When the sheriff, having an execution against the plaintiff, took possession of his cotton, it was, in law, a levy, and satisfied the execution to the extent of what it sold for, if legally sold ; to the full extent of its value, if wasted by the sheriff. To constitute a levy, the sheriff must take possession of property. To make a valid levy, it is not necessary that the defendant should give it up unwillingly. If the sheriff had found the property in a state of concealment, or if he had seized it with the assistance of a posse, it would unquestionably have been a levy. Is it worse for the present plaintiff, that with unusual honesty he told the sheriff where it was, and directed him to go and get it ? It is distinctly testified by Hopkins, the deputy, that the plaintiff who was defendant in the execution, did not know how the sheriff disposed of the cotton, how he sold it, or for what kind of money. The sheriff ought to have sold it himself, and for any thing that is shown in proof, he did so. But if he had it sold by a factor, it was his own wrong ; and though the sheriff in settlement with the factor, may have taken Grand Gulf money, or even claims against himself or his mother, his malfeasance cannot affect the plaintiffs.
    I do not hold the idea that the sheriff is esteemed by the law the agent of either party. But in this case the plaintiff in the execution, by indorsing on the sheriff’s docket instructions as to the kind of money he should collect, constituted the sheriff his agent with authority to receive other than constitutional money ; and if he received Grand Gulf money in part of the execution, we are not informed by the evidence whether or not it was such “ good New Orleans funds” as the sheriff was authorized by the plaintiff in the execution to receive. But in either case, it was the product of the plaintiff’s property sold by the sheriff, and ought to have gone to his credit on the execution.
   Per Curiam.

Robinson had obtained a judgment against Wood, for $2120, and on the 12th of December, 1838, a fi- fa-issued, returnable to the May term, 1839. The sheriff levied on slaves, and took a forthcoming bond, which was forfeited ; whereupon an execution issued against principal and surety, on the 6th of August, 1839, returnable to the November term. On this execution, the sheriff made no return. On the 31st of August, 1841, an alias ji. fa. was issued on the forfeited bond, returnable to the November term. The defendant obtained a supersedeas, and at the return term, moved to have satisfaction entered on the ground of payments made to the sheriff on the previous execution.

To establish the payment, the defendant in execution read in evidence a receipt or memorandum in these words :

“ James B. Robinson, Ex’r. of R. Robinson v. Curtis Wood & Alva Frisby.

Judgment, 4th December, 1838, $2124.16

Interest, 254.89

Plaintiff’s money, 2379.05

Costs endorsed ouj execution, 45.77

Sheriff’s commissions, 38.98

Entry, levy and return, 2.00

$2465.80

Credit by cash of J. O. Pierson, $808.13

Interest, 21.55

Cash of G. W. Reynolds 20th Feb. 1840, 1400.00

Interest, 37.33

Cash by G. W. Reynolds, June 6th, 1840, 198.79

-- $2465.80

“ Received June 6th, 1840, of George W. Reynolds, the sum of one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and seventy-nine cents, as above stated, in full satisfaction of the above stated execution.

R. J. Bland, Sheriff.

By M. O. Hopkins, I). Sheriff."

The proof is, that the above payments were made to the sheriff in this way : the sum of eight hundred and eight dollars and thirteen cents by an order on Pierson, which was not paid, but passed to Bland’s account on Pierson’s books. The item of $1400, paid by Reynolds, was received partly in depreciated banknotes, and by taking up some accounts against the sheriff and some other persons. The item of $198.79 was paid by Reynolds by appropriating that sum, which he then had in the hands of the sheriff, who had collected principally in Union money. It seems also, that Bland got some cotton of Wood, but the witness believed he had bought it, and agreed to pay the amount on the execution. This was in February, 1840. The plaintiff never received any money of any description from the sheriff, and had given him written instructions to receive nothing but gold and silver in satisfaction of the execution.

It would be sufficient in this case to remark, that at the date of these several payments, if payments they could be called, the sheriff had no existing execution in his hands. The ñvstfi.fa. that issued on the bond, was returned to November term, 1839. The alias Ji. fa. on the forfeited bond, issued on the 31st of August, 1841. The several payments were made in 1840, and the cotton transaction also took place in that year. A sheriff has no authority whatever to receive payments for a plaintiff, or take property without an operative execution in his hands. The authority which he receives by an execution, ceases at the return term. But in addition to this, payments made in depreciated currency do not amount to satisfaction, and are not binding on the plaintiff; especially when he has given instructions to the sheriff to receive nothing but gold and silver. The case falls within the decision in the case of McFarland v. Wilson, decided at the present term. The case of Gasquet, Parish & Co. v. R. H. Warren & P. M. Warren, is also conclusive as to the effect of a payment made in depreciated currency. The Court therefore very properly refused to have satisfaction entered, and the judgment must be affirmed.  