Case ID: scl_37/html/0380-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

St. Paul's Church vs. William Washington.
    
    In 1821, the condition of a bond, with the interest, equalled the penalty, and in 1826 the plaintiffs obtained judgment on the bond for the penalty. The defendant afterwards paid the penalty ; and on rule to shew cause why satisfaction should not be entered on the record, held, that the plaintiffs were entitled, neither to the interest accruing between 1821 and 1826, nor to interest on the penalty after the judgment was rendered, 
    
    
      Before Martin, J. at Charleston, February, 1832.
    The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
    
      “ The executor of defendant had taken a rule to shew cause why satisfaction should not be entered on this judgment. On the return of the rule, it appeared that the action had been instituted on a bond; that in 1821 the condition, with the interest, equalled the penalty. That after-wards the plaintiffs (in 1826) obtained judgment for the penalty of the bond, and issued their execution.
    It was admitted that the penalty of the bond had been paid ; but the plaintiffs insisted, that if they were not entitled to the interest accruing between 1821 and 1826, having entered up their judgment for the penalty of the bond, that penalty bore interest from the signing of the judgment.
    If I had been left to my own judgment, uninfluenced by decided cases, I should have refused the rule. But I was of opinion the adjudicated cases had left me no room for the exercise of my own opinion, and made the rule absolute.”
    The plaintiffs appealed.
    
      
       Vide Bonsall vs. Taylor, 1 McC. 503, where it was decided, that in debt on a penal bond, the plaintiff can recover judgment only for the penalty, but that in debt on such judgment, he may recover interest on the penalty, from the time the judgment was rendered, by way of damages. See also Stroblevs. Large, 3 McC. 112; lb. 114. In the last of these cases it is said, that if the action be covenant, . damages beyond the penalty may be recovered. In Lonsdale vs, Church, 2 T. R. 388, it was held that in debt, damages could be re covered beyond the penalty ; but see 1 Sand. Rep. 58, note 1, contra.
      
    
   Per Curiam.

The question involved in this case was decided at this term, in the case of Trenholm vs. Bumpfield. The motion is dismissed.

Johnson, O’Neall and Harper, JJ. concurring. 
      
      
         Vide last preceding case.