
    Schroeppel against Jewell and others.
    Where a set off on* tria’I and allowed against a still larger claim, Centered"3?!! the second acmentid setoff is satisfied, and discharge a party imprisoned thereon, and order the entry of satisfaction ; but this cannot be done where a case is made, and a motion for a new trial is pending in the second cause.
    In August term, 1821, there was a judgment for the plaintiff in this cause, on which a balance of $217,91 remained due, on the llth oí July, 1823: and Jewell was arrested upon , f . . . ■ a ca. sa. thereon, and still remains in gaol. An action oí assumPsit? in favour of the defendants, against the plaintiff, was tried the said llth of July, wherein the said balance was set off, and passed to the jury, who found a verdict for the defendants in this cause. Upon this,, a case was made by the plaintiff, upon which he intended moving for a new trial, upon several points of law raised at the Circuit.
    G. C. Bronson,
    
    moved to discharge Jewell from imprisonment, and enter satisfaction, &c.
    E. Clark, contra.
   Curia.

Were the second cause terminated, by the entry of a judgment upon the verdict, that would, doubtless, be an extinguishment of the judgment in this cause. But a case has been regularly made, upon which the party may move for a new trial. Jewell must await the result of that proceeding. It will be a satisfaction, or not, according to the event. The application is premature.

Rule refused. 
      
       Had the balance been found for the defendant, in the second action, whether the Court would order satisfaction, even after judgment ? Quare. (Vid. Mumford v. Stocker, ante, 178.)
     