Case Name: Wm. Clarkson, vs. J. W. Cantey
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-03
Citations: 1 Harp. 312
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wm. Clarkson, vs. J. W. Cantey.
Judges: Mott, Johnson, Richardson, and Ganit, Justices, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
Wm. Clarkson, vs. J. W. Cantey.
TKe interest which’has accrued, on a senior execution, subsequently to the date of a junior execution, must be paid, before any part of~the money collected can, be applied to the satisfaction oj 'the junior execution.
TmsHvas a rule against the Sheriff, to shew cause why he Aid not pay over the money which was in his hands, and which he had collected from John Ballard, in satisfaction of an execution which Wm..Clarkson had obtained against the said John Ballard., The sheriff shewed for cause, that there wejre older ■executions in his .hands against tire said Ballard, which would take the whole of the money. It appeared that a large portion of the amount due by Ballard ■ on the senior executions, was the interest which had accrued since the date of Clarkson’s execution; and the only question in this case was, whether the •Senior judgment creditors were entitled to recover the interest which had accrued on their judgments subsequently to the date Of Clarkson’s. The circuit court decided that the senior ex ecutions, principal and interest, were to be paid in preference to Clarkson’s. From this decision Clarkson now appealed.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Huger.
The legislature in allowing interest on all judgments, intended to furnish an inducement to judgment creditors to indulge their debtors. This inducement would be much diminished, if the interest as well as principal were not secured by the judgment. The subsequent judgment creditor is not placed in. a worse situation by allowing interest, (which is only an equivalent for the use of the principal) than he would be if the senior execution were enforced as soon as lodged; a result which would generally follow, if the interest as well as principal were not secured by the judgment. In similar cases interest has never been separated from principal. The motion is refused.
Mott, Johnson, Richardson, and Ganit, Justices, concurred.