
    Cochran et al. versus Shields.
    1. An affidavit of defence by one defendant, that he had reason to believe that his co-defendant, who makes no affidavit of defence, had paid the debt, and that he concealed it from him, is not sufficient to prevent judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
    2. Where two are jointly bound, one in fact the principal debtor, the other a surety, the surety may pay the debt and take an equitable assignment, and keep it on foot and collect it from the principal debtor.
    Error to the District Court of Philadelphia.
    
    This was a scire facias to revive a judgment, by James Shields, for use of Mark Morton, against Andrew Cochran and William Perry. Perry made no defence; Cochran filed an affidavit of defence, the principal facts of which are referred to in the opinion of the court.
    
      Gruillou and McIntyre, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Phillips, for defendant in error.
   The opinion, of the court was delivered March 12, 1855, by

Woodward, J.

— This was a scire facias to revive a judgment, and Cochran, one of the defendants, put in an affidavit of defence and a supplemental affidavit, without suggesting that the judgment was not for his own proper debt, and without alleging that he had paid a farthing on it. He swears that he had reason to believe his co-defendant, who makes no defence whatever, had paid it, and that he concealed from him the evidence of the fact. Suppose it were so. Morton, or even Perry, may have paid the judgment to Shields, and taken an equitable assignment for the purpose of enforcing it against Cochran, and if it was his proper debt, he is still liable. If he was not the principal debtor, why does he not allege it ? He must be presumed to have sworn as hard as he could, and yet he avers no fact which tends to show that he had any defence against a judgment which he was bound to pay. Perry alleged no defence. Cochran was not called on to put in a defence for Perry, but for himself, and having none to allege, judgment was entered against him, and it is accordingly affirmed.  