
    TROXWELL, &c. vs. FUGATE.
    
      April 4th.
    
    A variance between the writ and declaration in debt as to the fum declared h r is cured by the aft oh jeofails-— See aces of 1796 -7, 24, i ⅜ I Brad. 22b.
    
      A jud^mv-nc *or intereft is erroneous ir’ it do n. t ftate the rate oh the intereft recovered.
    The cierk Is not author lt d to calculate inte reft on ft glr bills in puriu-anee oh the art of 1799» ch. 17, § 2, p 41, it the Tingle bill were given pri- or to that art, but the meieil ihoi.Jd be found by a jury.
    THIS suit was brought in Scott circuit court, and was founded on a single bill, dated the 21st day of March» 1798, payable the 30 th day of June following, for 461. 16s. The writ was for 6/. 16s. only — the declaration was for 46/. 16». At the July term of said court, in the year 18Ó3, a writ of inquiry was executed, and one penny damages assessed. Thej udgment entered was for 46/. 16s. “ with interest thereon from the 30th day of June, 1798, til! paid,” and costs. On a writ of error being prosecuted, the following was
   The Opinion of the Court.- — The variance between the writ and declaration, as to the sum sued for, is cured by the act of jeofails; but there is error in the judgment, in the first instance, in allowing interest, and in the second, if allowable, in not stating the rate of interest. The instrument of writing upon which this suit is founded, having been given prior to the act prescribing the mode of calculating interest in certain cases, and for other purposes, the interest due thereon should have been found byway of damages, and not calculated by the clerk, as in case of judgments upon bonds or penal bills*

Judgment reversed. 
      
      
         This dectfion, as t^thls poirft, Is fupported by feveral later dediions, and overrules rhe cafes of Fowler vs. Cowper, 1801, Pr. Dec. 71—and Scott vs. Taylor and wife, ex'rs of Leech, 1801, Pr. Dec. 113.
     
      
       See Ruffell vs. Shepherd, and Taul vs. Moore, poft.
      
     