
    PHILLIPS vs. MUNCY NATIONAL BANK.
    The fact that a party did not get the benefit of all the payments he proved, does not permit him to show them in another case between the •same parties.
    A plaintiff in an attachment execution who has not obtained judgment against the garnishee, may issue and prosecute a sci.. fa- to revive the judgment of his debtor against the garnishee.
    Error to Common Pleas of Sullivan County, No. 352 and 353 January Term, 1884.
    
      Edvard Lyon obtained at various times five notes signed by Griffith Phillips, and had judgments entered thereon. TheMuncy Bank obtamed a judgment for $50,000 against Edward Lyon and issued attachment execution with notice to Phillips-Phillips applied for a rule to open the judgments on the-ground of fraud and that he had paid all money actually due. The Court opened three of the judgments, but discharged the-rule as to the other two. Upon a trial of the three judgments which were opened, Phillips gave in evidence various payments and offsets, and the jury found in favor of Phillips for $808.16. The Court ordered a new trial, unles the-defendant would agree to have the $808.16 remitted, and a remittitur was accordingly filed. The-other two cases came on for trial on sci.fas. to revive the judgments. The plaintiffs offered in evidence the judgments of the Bank against Lyon and the attachment execution. The defendant objected because no judgment had been obtained against the ga1 nishee. The Court admitted the judgment and attachment execution, and this forms the subject of the first-error. Defendant offered in evidence various payments that had been offered in evidence in the feigned issues, with the-further offer to prove that these payments were to be credited on the whole debt, and not on any particular judgment. The-Court rejected the offer. Defendant then offered the verdict in the feigned issue cases, to show that on the whole series of transactions he owed the plaintiff nothing. The Court rejected the offer. ' Under this ruling of the Court the jury rendered verdicts against the defendant in the two cases for $84,95 and $145.55, respectively.
    Phillips then took these writs of error, assigning the rulings upon admission of evidence for errors.
    
      E. P. Ingham, O. H. Reighark and A. L. Grim, Esqs., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that where a judgment is attached, proceedings in it are stayed until the attachment is decided; Daly vs. Derringer, 1 Phila, 324; Herbert vs. Williams, 5 Luz. Leg. Reg., 62; Myers vs. Baltzel, 37 Pa., 491; Carr vs. Beck, 51 Pa., 269; Coles vs. Sellers, 1 Phila., 533. The Court should have allowed the defendant to show his actual payments made on these judgments; or have given the defendant the benefit of the verdict in the feigned issues: Hartzell vs. Reiss, 1 Binnoy, 291.
    
      Messrs. C. Lloyd, W. E. Crawford and E. M. Dunham, Esqs., contra,
    
    cited Myers vs. Baltzel, 37 Pa., 493; Strong’s Ex. vs. Bass, 35 Pa., 333. Even if the check for $800 had not been used in evidence in the feigned issues, yet it was inadmissible as a payment on a sci. fa. to revive a judgment entered in 1876 because it was dated April 1, 3 873; McVeigh vs. Little, 7 Pa., 279; Davidson vs. Thornton, 7 Pa., 128; Carr vs. Townsend, 63 Pa., 202.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on March 31st, 1884, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

These two cases were tried together in the Court below and were argued together here. The plaintiff in error has no just •complaint, that the attachment executions were received in •evidence, tie was not thereby prevented from making any defense which he might otherwise have made to the revival of the judgments. The liens were about expiring and the Bank had not yet obtained judgment against the garnishee. The plaintiff in error was in no condition to object to the revival of the judgments for such sums as were due thereon. The Court committed no error in rejecting the evidence offered to ■ show payments, which had been given in evidence and adjudicated in other cases between the same parties. The fact that the plaintiff in error did not under the verdicts in those •cases, get the benefit of all the claims he proved, and the jury passed upon, does not permit him to again have them considered and applied as a payment in the present cases.

Judgment in each case affirmed.  