
    Richard Rundle and Thomas Murgatroyd against Jacob Ettwein.
    The innocent assignee of a, bond though without notice, stands in the place of the obligee, so as to let in every defence obligor had against the obligee, at the time of the assignment, or notice thereof.
    Execution cannot be levied on lands which defendant -got by purchase after the judgment, if he aliened them bona fide before execution.
    
      SCARE FJ1C1JIS on a judgment obtained on the 26th February 1767, by the present plaintiffs, as assignees of John Scheffer, against one George Weiss, on a bond dated 14th January, 1786, conditioned for the payment of 247i. 15s. and interest, on the 14th September then next ensuing. A fieri facias had issued thereon, returnable to June term 1789, on which was levied a balee house and lot of ground in Sterling alley, in the city of Philadelphia, now in the tenure of the defendant.
    By an instrument dated 28th November 1792, it was agreed by the counsel, that the consideration of the bond should be inquired into in the present suit, notwithstanding the judgment had thereon ; and it was admitted, that at the time of the judgment against Weiss, he had no title in the premises levied on afterwards.
    It appeared in evidence, that William Henderson, on the 7th June, 1788, conveyed the aforesaid bake house and lot of ground to the aforesaid George Weiss, in consideration of 500/, and on the same day also conveyed also another lot to the said John Scheffer in consideration of 150.
    On the 19th January 1789, the aforesaid George Weiss reconveyed the bake house &c., to the said Henderson, no part of the former consideration money having been paid; and on the 30th of the same month, Scheffer also rcconveyed the other lot to Henderson in consideration of 16/. 10s. he pretending a claim for some trouble, &c. Henderson after wards sold the property to Ettwein, the present defendant.
    It further appeared clearly, that the bond was obtained from Weiss by Scheffer without consideration, and that a most wicked combination had been formed to defraud one Charles Norris, (a young man of good property, but subject to intemperance,) of a considerable sum of money, and that this bond formed a part of the system in the iniquitous proceeding.
    The court declared that the plaintiffs, though innocent assignees of the bond and without notice, stood in the place of the obligee., so as to let in every defence which the obligor had against the obligee, at the time of the assignment, or notice thereof, (see Dali. 28,) and therefore were not entitled to recover on the merits, either in law or equity. They further declared, that execution could not be sued on the lands which defendant got by purchase after the judgment, if he)aliened them before execution bona fide. Yide 2 Inst. 678. 2 Hen. 4, 14. F. N. B. 267. 2 Inst. 895. 4 Bl. Com. 419. Termes de la Ley. Yoc. Execution. Cro. Car. 149. Co. Lit. 102. a. 2 Bac. Ab. 364, 365. Pitzherb. Abr. pi. 126.
    Mr. Rawle, pro quer. Messrs. Lewis and Porter, pro def.
    
   Yerdict for the defendant.  