delivered the opinion of the court. This is a case in which the plaintiff *102prayed for and obtained an injunction to stay proceedings in an execution levied on his property by the sheriff of East Feliciana, at the instance of Allyn &- Babcock, who had previously obtained a judgrrient against him. The injunction was made perpetual by a decree of the court below, after a hearing of the cause on its merits, from which Allyn, one of the partners of Allyn & Babcock, appealed.

The principal facts of the case, as sho wn by the record, appear to be the following: Allyn & Babcock obtained a judgment against the present plaintiff, Afterwards, Andrew Skill-man got a judgment, joint and several, against Babcock and several other persons, on which he caused an execution to be issued; and, amongst other property of the defendant, Bab-cock, was seized and sold his interest in the judgment which Allyn &, Babcock had previously obtained against Croft. At the sheriff’s sale, Croft became the purchaser of Bab-cock’s right, title and interest in the judnment which had been obtained against him, as above stated, by Allyn & Babcock.

This purchase, he alleges, conveyed to him one half of the amount of said judgment, and to that extent extinguishes the claim *103against him by the firm of Allyn S? Babcock, by confession.

The only legal question in the cause is, whether the undivided interest of Babcock in the judgment was lawfully seized under Skil-man’s execution. This question, we think, must be decided affirmatively Until a failure, or insolvency, the right to seize the undivided portion or interest in partnership property of one of the partners, cannot be doubted ; and in the present case there is no evidence of bankruptcy.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.