
    COMTH. to use v. WATMOUGH et al.
    
    May 18, 1839.
    
      Rule to show cause why the satisfaction of a judgment should not he vacated, tjc.
    
    The official bond of a sheriff is sued out to the use of J. S,, judgment obtained, and satisfaction entered: Held, that the satisfaction would not be vacated in order to let in a claim of W. D. on the bond, under the act of 14th February, 1836, relating to bonds, &e. In such a case, the latter claimant must proceed ie novo on the bohd.
    THIS was an action of debt against John G. Watmough, Sheriff of Philadelphia County, and his sureties, brought in the name of the Commonwealth, to the use of J. S. Silver, on the. official bond of said sheriff. The plaintiff, Silver, had recovered a judgment which had been paid and satisfied.
    An application was now made by William Dilworth, setting forth that he had a claim on said official bond, and asking for the vacation of the satisfaction of the said judgment, and that it should stand in the penalty of eighty thousand dollars, so as to enable him to suggest his claim, and proceed to try his right.
    A rule to show cause was granted.
    
      Davis, for the rule,
    relied on the provisions of the act of 14th June, 1836, relating to bonds, &c. (Stroud’s Purd. tit. Bonds.)
    
    Williams, contra.
   The Court

said the judgment having been satisfied, the suit was at an end, and they would not interfere, but would leave Dilworth to proceed on the bond de novo.

Rule discharged.  