
    
      Thomas L. Rice, assignee, vs. J. D. Wright.
    
    Where separate judgments were recovered against two joint and several makers of a promissory note — both being principals — and judgment was afterwards recovered against the bail of one of them, who paid the judgment, on the bail bond, against himself, and took an assignment of both the original judgments, held, on rule to show cause, that the payment by the bail of the judgment against himself was no satisfaction of the judgments against the makers of the note.
    
      Before O’Neall, J., at Laurens, Spring Term. 1854.
    John D. Wright and Robert McCann purchased property jointly, and gave their .joint and several promissory note for $1500 in part payment, to John Wilson, or bearer. Wilson transferred the note to S. L. Maddox, who brought separate actions thereon against the makers, and recovered judgments— against Wright in Laurens, and against McCann in Anderson. In the action against McCann, bail was required ; and Thomas L. Rice became his bail. Ca. sa. was issued against McCann and returned non est inventus ; and thereupon Maddox sued Rice on the bail bond, and recovered judgment against him. Rice paid the judgment against himself, and took, at the same time, from Maddox, assignments of the two judgments against Wright and McCann.
    This was a rule against Rice, to show cause why satisfaction of the judgment against Wright should not be entered.
    His Honor, the presiding Judge, discharged the rule: and Wright appealed on the grounds:
    1. Because his Honor erred in holding that the recovery and payment of the judgment obtained by S. L. Maddox against Thomas L. Rice, the bail of Robert McCann, one of the makers of the note upon which the judgment was obtained against John D. Wright, was no satisfaction of the latter judgment.
    2. Because his Honor erred in refusing to order satisfaction of the judgment and fi. fa. of Samuel L. Maddox against John D. Wright to be entered.
    
      Young, ¡Simpson, for appellant.
    
      Sullivan, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

The decision in the case of Wilson, assignee of Norris, vs. Wright, ( ) is decisive in this case.

For if the indorser may, by paying the judgment against himself, and obtaining an assignment of the judgment against the maker, be allowed to hold that judgment as a purchaser, certainly the bail of McCann, on paying the judgment against himself, will be allowed not only to acquire the judgment against his principal, but also that against the other joint and several maker, where both are principals. He is a purchaser of the judgment, as he had the right to be, for his own protection.

The motion to reverse the Circuit decision is dismissed.

Withers, Whitner, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Wardlaw, J. See my concurrence with result in the case of Wright and Wilson.

Motion dismissed. 
      
      (a) Anto, p.399.
     