¶1— We are clearly of opinion, that the judgment first entered, is entitled to be first paid. The plaintiff in the common pleas must, therefore, enjoy his preference.
¶2A question of priority of judgments also arose in the common pleas of Philadelphia county, at June term 1806, in the case of Emerick b. Garwood.
¶3It was on a case stated between two creditors of the defendant, each of whom had entered judgment, by virtue of a bond and warrant, on the same day, at the distance of a few hours. It was held by the Court (Rush, President), that there should be no precedence between the judgments; but that the proceeds of the sales which arose from real estate, should be divided.
¶4The reason chiefly assigned by the President, was the inconvenience of a contrary rule, there being several courts, in which judgment might be entered on the same day; and the authority on which he chiefly relied was Lord Porohester’s case, as stated by Buller, in IT. R. 118.
¶5Milnor, for the second creditor. Rawle, contra.
¶6 s. c. 1 Bro. 20; s. p. Steele v. Taggert, Id. 20 n.; Mitzler v. Kilgore, 3 P. & W. 245.