
    
      Ex parte Lawrence.
    A levy on perty™1 6uffi-^t0 jiatisf/ an extmguishy,dgm0nt
    meut, therefore *°ab°sa tate, and the iüof^aa °nc fight, as such, dor the act Ch"
    Toll obtained judgment against Chandler, and bid off Chandler’s land in Camillus, Onondaga county, on afi. fa. at $30, May 8th, 1823. Drake having a junior judgment for 82 55 against Chandler and one Hopping, assigned it to Lawrencé, who sued out a fi.fa. on which the sheriff made 43 dollars by a sale of Chandler’s personal property; and then levied on Hopping’s personal property to an amount sufficient to satisfy the fi. fa. and took a receipt for it. The sale of Hopping’s property was delayed from time to time, by Lawrence’s directions, till, in August, 1824, Lawrence claimed of the sheriff to redeem, as a judgment creditor of Chandler, the land sold, upon the senior judgment, to Toll; but the sheriff denied his right to redeem, and would not receive the money, or-give a conveyance; .and in September last, he sold Hopping’-spersonal property, and collected the residue of Lawrence’s fi. fa. .pursuant to his directions.
    A mandamus was now.mqved for,to the sheriff of Onondaga, commanding .Him to convey to Lawrence..
    
      G. Lawrence, for the motion.
    
      B. D. Noxon, contra.
   Curia.

Clearly this motion must he denied. The'levy ón the personal property of Hopping, to an amount sufficient to satisfy Lawrence’s execution operated per se, a-s an extinguishment of his judgment. This has been often held. (Clerk v. Withers, 2 Ld. Raym. 1072. l Salk. 322. S. C. Ladd v. Blunt, 4 Mass. Rep. 403. Hoyt v. Hudson, 12 John. Rep. 207. Reed v. Pruyn & Staats, 7 id. 428-91) Lawrence’s judgment ceased to he a lien from the'time oí the levy, and. of course "he could not redeem. (Matter of Hurd, 3 Cowen’s Rep. 35. Mutter of Marsh, id. 69.)

Motion .denied  