COMMON PLEAS, Philadelphia
County.
SHOEMAKER verʃus SHIRTLIFFE.
D
ALLAS moved for a rule to fhew caufe why the execution iffued in this action, fhould not be faid, till another action, brought upon the act of Affembly againft Ufury, by Shirtliƒƒe, the perfent denfendant, againift Shoemaker, the plaintiff, was determined. The motion was founded upon an affirmation, which ftated, that the plaintiff and defendant, having been concerned in trade, borrowed money from one Anne Gibbs upon a ufurious contract ; that Anne Gibbs became preffing for the payment of the money while the defendant was out of town ; that the plaintiff thereupon gave her his feparate fecurities to pay within a certain time ; that upon the defendant's return he executed a bond and warrant of attorney to the plaintiff, for his proportion of the debt due to Anne Gibbs, that the prefent execution is iffued upon the judgment confeffed by virtue of that warrant of attorney ; that an action is depending againft Gibbs, on the act of Affembly againft Ufury, and that the defendant has alfo inftituted a fuit againft the plaintiff upon the fame act returnable to September term, 1785.
