This is an action upon the bond mentioned in the case of R. S. Gilfillan and A. B. Gilfillan, Partners Doing-Business under the Firm Name and Style of R. S. Gilfillan & Son, Plaintiffs in Error, v. City of Bartlesville, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant in Error (No. 3706) 148 Pac. 1012, reported in this volume.

The plaintiffs in error in that case are the principals in the *310 bond sued on here; and reference is here now made to that case for the facts essential to a decision in this, which must follow the decision in that.

The bond sued on and the judgment recovered in the instant case, however, is only for the sum of $2,000; and, of course, payment upon the judgment in the instant case would, pro ianto, entitle the debtors to a credit upon the judgment in that, while payment in that case, which reduces the judgment debt below the amount of the judgment here, would, pro tanto•, entitle the debtors to a credit upon the judgment here. •

For the reasons stated in that case, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.