after stating the case, proceeded as follows:
I suppose the present action is brought for the benefit of the surety Hooks, to avoid the effect of the statiite of limitations, or a disbursement of the assets subsequent to the judgment of the bank against Green, which might prevent an effectual recovery in a suit in Hooks’ own name.
But in the case stated, I think the present action yqually ineffectual. Since the statute of 4th Jinn, payment discharges a judgment, as effectually as entering satisfaction of record. Here there was full payment. It was inten ded as such by Hooks, and so received by the creditor. A payment by any one of two or more, jointly, or jointly and .severally bound for the same debt, is payment by all; and any of the parties may take advantage of it and plead it to an action brought by a satisfied creditor, or in his name by the sureties. It is true, that if a payment be not intended, but a purchase, there is a difference. But that can only be by a stranger, or by using the name of a stranger, to whom an assignment can bo made when there is but a single security, and that, one upon which all the parties are jointly liable. This is upon the score of intention, and because the plea of payment by a stranger is bad upon demurrer. If the assignment of a joint security be taken by the surety himself, there is an extinguishment, notwithstanding the intention ; because an assignment to one, of his own debt, is an absurdity. Where the securities are separate, as several bonds, or a several judgment upon a joint and several note, which is the case here, probably an assignment *382 may be made to the surety himself, since he is nd. party to the judgment. But if that can he, clearly nothing hut a plain intention, evinced by an assignment, to keep up the judgment, can have that effect. Upon the face of the transaction, it is a payment, on which I£'oks could have maintained assumpsit in his own name. That shews that this suit is barred ; for if it he not, the original creditor, and the surety, may both recover the same debt.
This case is just the reverse of Hodges v. Armstrong, (ante 253.) That suit was brought in the name of the surety> wh° I'ad taken an assignment to a stranger, and did not intend a satisfaction. This, in the name of the first creditor, who has received payment, and did intend a satisfaction. Both decisions are on clear grounds, and are supported by numerous authorities ; amongst them, I recollect Church v. Bishop, (2 Ves. 371,) and Wattington v. Sparks. (Id. 569.)
Per Curiam — Judgment aeeirmed.