
    ADAMS VS. HUNTER.
    An attachment of partnership property hy a creditor of one of the partners is not valid as against an attachment of the same property 'by a partnership creditor.
    Error to Common Pleas No. 1, of Philadelphia County. No. 157 Term, 1884.
    On May 1st, 1884,, the firm of Dippy & Sigfried confessed a •judgment in favor of Hunter & Drennan, which was entered, and an attachment execution was issued on May 29, 1884, with notice to Ebenez'er Adams as garnishee. In answer to interrogatories Adams answered that he had $640 in his hands belonging to Dippy & Sigfried; and further that Jacob Hagan had obtained ¿'judgment against Robert H. Dippy for $432; and had issued an attachment execution on April 3, 1884, with notice to Adams as garnishee. The Court entered judgment in favor of Hunter & Co. on the answer; and Adams was allowed to pay the' monej'' into Court.. Hunter & Co. afterwards obtained an order to pay them the money. The errors assigned Were the entry of judgment, and ordering the money to be paid over.
    
      E. Willard, Ex., for plaintiff in error,
    cited Lanback vs. Black, 1 W. N. C. 314; Allegheny Bank vs. Meger, 59 Pa. 361; Fithian vs. Brooks, 1 Phila. 260; Ferguson vs. Craig, I W. N. C. 153; Sheets vs. Leech, 2 W. N. C. 291; Good vs. Grant, 76 Pa. 52; Neff vs. Love, 2 Miles 128; Myers vs. Urich, Bin. 25.
    J. W. Shortlidge, Esq., contra,
    
    argued that the partnership property must apply to the payment of partnership debts, and until these are fully paid, it cannot be applied to the payment of .an individual debt of one of the partners; Baker’s Appeal, 21 Pa. 76; Deal vs. Bogue, 20 Pa. 233; Doner vs. Stauffer, 1 P. & W. 205; Cooper’s Appeal, 26 Pa. 262; King's Appeal, 9 Pa. 127; Kramer vs. Arthurs, 7 Pa. 165; York County Bank’s Appeal, 32 Pa. 448; Backus vs. Murphy, 39 Pa. 401; Newlin vs. Scott, 26 Pa. 103.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas, on April 13th, 1885, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

Inasmuch as the first attachment issued on a judgment recovered against one of the firm for his individual debt, it did not bind the assets of the firm to the exclusion of the creditors thereof.

That attachment being thus invalid, the answers of the plaintiff in error admitted his indebtedness, and justified the entry •of judgment against him.

At his own request he was permitted to pay into Court the money which he thus admitted to be due. He is, therefore, not in condition to complain of the order of Court ordering it to be paid over to the attaching creditor on the judgment.

The assignments are not sustained.

Judgment affirmed.  