#### Jacques Bishop *v.*William Ross.

A letter of guaranty was given by the defendant to the plaintiff, by which the defendant consented to be liable for the amount which a third person, whom he recommended as a customer to the plaintiff, might, at the time of the delivery, receive. The party received goods to the amount of $ 225 03J. Defendant repeatedly acknowledged, his liability to pay this amount, and afterwards promised to pay the same. Held, that, in-1 asmuch as interest was not recoverable by our law, against the principal debtor upon the open account, in this case, the obligation imposed by the guaranty making defendant liable only to the same extent, interest could not be recovered from him.

*Before O’NJEALL, J., at*Sumter, *Fall Term,*1837.

This was an action on a letter of guaranty, by which the defendant consented to be liable for the amount which a third person, whom he recommended as a customer to the plaintiff, might, at the time of the delivery, receive. The party then received in merchandise, leather and shoes, to the amount of *225*03j. The defendant repeatedly acknowledged his liability to pay this amount, and, from at least one year after the articles were delivered, promised to pay the same. The only question now made, is the defendant’s liability for interest. The presiding judge thought, as the promise to pay was in writing, and the sum was ascertained and fixed, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover interest on the account, from the expiration of one year after the date of the letter of guaranty. The jury found accordingly: the defendant appealed on the annexed grounds:—

Because, it is respectfully submitted, that his Honor misdirected the jury, in charging them that on the cause of action interest should be allowed. Because, the finding of the interest was against the law and evidence.

Curia, per Richardson, J.

The single question is — whether interest can be recovered against Ross, the guarantor, on an open *22account, due by his principal ? The law is settled, that no interest can be recovered against the principal debtor, *on*such open account ; and, it is equally plain, that the undertaking of a surety, or guarantor, is to answer for the debt due by the principal, and not for more than the principal owes.

*Moses,*for appellant.

The letter of credit, then, of the defendant Ross, answered no purpose but to make him liable for the amount of the indebtedness of his principal, and could not give character to the debt. The guaranty must be put in writing, in order to render the surety liable at all. But, it does not liquidate the debt, nor, in any way, alter its form, or legal effect. These depend upon the contract of the principal himself, and are not affected by the subsequent acknowledgments of Ross. But, it is also plain, that the principal is responsible to his guarantor, for the amount recovered against him, as guarantor. If, therefore, we allow interest, in the first instance, against Ross, on the plaintiff’s open account, Ross must recover the same interest against the principal debtor: and it would follow, that interest is recoverable on the open account, notwithstanding the rule just laid down, that it is not recoverable, I scarcely need add, that such inconsistency must prevent the recovery of the interest in this case ; and, a new trial is ordered, unless the plaintiff release the interest.

Gantt, Evans, Earle and Butler, Justices, concurred.