
    Inman H. Triplett Pltff in Error, v. David Scott Deft in Error.
    ERROR TO HANCOCK
    f A recovers judgment in his name for the use of B, the former cannot receive satisfaction of the judgment, although the legal interest is in his name, and if suit is brought on that judgment, it must be brought in his name.
    A payment to a nominal plaintiff, is not a satisfaction of the debt.
    This suit was originally commenced by Triplett in his name alone, against Scott, before a justice of the peace in Hancock county.
    The foundation of the suit was a judgment rendered before the same justice, entered in the name of “Dennis Clancey for use of Inman H. Triplett.” Triplett obtained judgment in his own name against Scott for the sum of $4 00, the amount of the judgment sued on.
    Scott appealed to the Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court of Hancock county, Minshall, Judge presiding, the cause was submitted to him upon an agreement of this substance.
    That the plaintiff was the owner of a note made by the defendant to one Clancey or bearer. That plaintiff sued it in the name of Clancey to his use. That Clancey, the nominal plaintiff, without the knowledge or consent of Triplett, the real plaintiff, receipted the judgment upon the docket of the justice.
    The Circuit Court, at September term, 1850, dismissed the suit. Triplett sued out this writ of error and seeks to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court.
    Gr. Edmonds, jr., submitted the cause ex parte.
    
   Caton, J.

Triplett brought a suit against Scott in the name of Claneey, the record showing that it was for the use of Triplett. Without the knowledge or consent of Triplett, Scott paid the amount of the judgment to the nominal plaintiff, and took his receijjt therefor. Triplett then brought this suit upon that judgment in his own name, which the Circuit Court decided he could not maintain; and we think property. It is true that the payment by Scott to the nominal plaintiff was made in his own wrong, and, it may be admitted, did not satisfy the judgment. Still the legal title to the judgment remained in the nominal plaintiff, and Triplett could no more recover in his own name in a suit upon that judgment, than he could have sued in his own name upon the note upon which the first suit was brought. That note was payable to Claneey, and was transferred to Triplett without endorsement. Hence, Triplett had to sue upon that note in the name of Claneey because the legal title still remained in him, although the equitable title had passed to Triplett. The legal and equ^bty.titles to the judgment were the same as they had been to the note,- and .Triplett was under the necessity of enforcing his rjghts^n.the same way,-that is, by the use of the name of Clancey, the’trustee. The receipt of Claneey for the amount of the judgment could present no more impediment to the recovery in his name upon the judgment, than a receipt given by him for the amount due on the note, would have defeated a recovery on the note.

Thejudgment is affirmed with costs.

Judgment affirmed.  