
    Thomas S. Alexander, v. John Adams, Sheriff.
    If one place a note in the hands of an attorney for collection, instructing him to pay the proceeds in satisfaction of a debt due by him to another, that other being also a client of the same attorney, this is an actual appropriation of the fund, which places it beyond the future control of the party so instructing, and which he can not revoke by an after assignment.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Wardlaw, at Lancaster, Fall Term, 1846.
    This was a sum pro for money had and received.
    The plaintiff claimed that, as assignee of an execution, E. G. Crockett v. Massy, he was entitled to the money which the sheriff had collected under that execution. The defendant maintained, that one Barnett, through his attorney, had a prior right to the money.
    Mr. Wright, attorney, testified, that after he had received from Crockett several notes for collection, and given the usual receipt “for collection,” and before the assignment to the plaintiff, Crockett came to him to confess a judgment to some thii'd person, of such amount as would cover all his property.
    The witness mentioned a note of Crockett to Barnett, which he then, as Crockett knew, held for collection, and Crockett said, “you have, as attorney, enough to save that debt,” and used other words, which the witness said amounted substantially to a pledge for the Barnett debt, of all the notes belonging to Crockett, which the witness held for collection, and in effect, gave to the witness authority to apply the collections from all those notes to the Barnett debt.
    The presiding Judge decreed for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed and moved this Court to set aside the decree.
    Clinton & Gaston, for the motion.
   Evans, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The presiding Judge was satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence that the money arising from the notes in Mr. Wright’s hands for collection, were appropriated to pay the debt due to Barnett, and this Court is well satisfied with his conclusion. If Mr. Wright had been the attorney of Crockett alone, what passed between them might be a mere direction of Crockett to his agent, as to application of the money, which would be revocable. But Mr. Wright was the attorney of Barnett also, and the appropriation was made to him in that capacity. It was therefore not a direction merely, but an actual appropriation of the fund, or a verbal assignment which placed it beyond the subsequent control of Crockett, and which lie could not revoke by his assignment to the plaintiff.

The motion is therefore dismissed.  