Case Name: CHRISTIAN GRO and JOSEPH TOWNSEND against The HUNTINGDON BANK
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1830-06
Citations: 1 Pen. & W. 425
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHRISTIAN GRO and JOSEPH TOWNSEND against The HUNTINGDON BANK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Penrose & Watts)
Volume: 1
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
CHRISTIAN GRO and JOSEPH TOWNSEND against The HUNTINGDON BANK.
A creditor who has obtained judgment against the principal,, against the indorsers, and against the absolute bail of the principal, and has issued execution and levied upon the land of the principal or of the absolute bail, may, nevertheless have execution of the chattels of the endorsers. Nothing but actual satisfaction can prevent him.
The bare seizing of land in execution to the value of the debt, is not a satisfaction.
Writ of error to the special Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, {Reed, president.)
The Huntingdon Bank loaned one thousand dollars to Robert Burns, for which they took his note with Christian Gro and Joseph Townsend, endorsers. To April'term, 1817, the hank obtained a judgment against Robert Bums, and also to the same term against Christian Gro and Joseph Townsend; after judgment was obtained against Robert Burns the principal, Hugh Burns, John Rothrock and James Robinson, went his absolute bail for the money, in order to obtain the stay of execution for one year. After the year had expired, Burns, -,Rothrock and Robinson were sued pn the recognizance by the bank, and judgment obtained against them, upon which a fi. fa. was issued and levied upon the land of the defendants; an inquisition was held thereon, and it was extended. Subsequently a fi. fa. issued upon the judgment against Christian Gro and Joseph Townsend which was levied upon the land of Christian Gro, whose’counsel moved the court to set aside the execution on the ground that property of the absolute bail had been levied to an amount sufficient to pay the debt, interest and costs. But the court being of opinion that the -bank had a right to proceed against both, until it received satisfaction, refused to set aside the execution against Christian Gro, and this writ of error was sued out.
Fisher , for the plaintiffin error.
The bank had no right to issue a fi.fa. against Gro, the endorser, until it had exhausted the judgment, execution and levy of the property of the absolute bail. Bank of Pennsylvania v. Latshaw, 9 Serg. Rawle, 9. Hunt v. MClure, 2 Yeates 387. Clerk v. Withers, 2 Ld. Raym. 1073. Windham v .Withers,! Strange, 515. 2 Wil. Bac. Ab. 717, title Execution. Lancaster v. Fielder, 2 Ld.Raym, 1451. Chitty on Bills, 443. Hayt v. Hudson, 12 Johns. Rep. 207. Barnet v. Washebazigh, 16 Serg. Rawle, 410. Commonwealth v. Lebo, 13 Serg. Rawle, 175. Lawrence v. Pond, 17 Mass. 433. M‘Lelland v. Whitney, 15 Mass 137. Ladd v. Blunt, 4 Mass. 403. Upon principle, it would be wrong, to permit a plaintiff to take out several executions, and upon each to levy property enough to pay the debt; because if the sheriff levies he must sell; he is commanded so to do; he has no right to- judge or know that two or more executions áre to satisfy the same debt.-
Hale, for defendant in errbr',-
Admitted that a levy upon persortál property to an amount sufficient to pay the execution, was a discharge of the debt; and that the authorities read on the other side very fully established that rule of law; but still contended, that the idea, that a levy upon-land was a satisfaction of the debt, never was printed in a book.
Fisher,- in reply
read, MCulloch v. Gilnier, 1 Bin. 214. Morris v, Griffith, 1 Yeates, 189.

Opinion:
Per Curiam
Levying the lands of bail, is not distinguishable' from levying the lands of the principal; so that the question is-whether a creditor who has levied the land of the drawer of a note, may nevertheless have execution of the chattels of the endorsers,Nothing but actual satisfaction can prevent him; and accordingly the argument is that a levy is satisfaction.- It is clear, however, that the bare seizing of land in execution to the value of the debt, is not so. A condemnation of the land might have given colour to the argument; hut the r'ents and profits having been found sufficient to produce satisfaction in seven years, the creditor was at- liberty to proceed to an extent or not,- at his election, and having declined' to take satisfaction out of the profits, it is clear the debt remains.Whether, however, a mere refusal to stay proceedings he properly the subject of a writ of error, is a point Which has not been made,- and on which we forbear to intimate an opinion.