
    
      John Hart, Sheriff of Charleston District, against Isaac Tobias.
    
    
      Charleston District,
    
    
      1802.
    
    
      In the action of debt on a replevin bond, the measure of damages must depend on the value of the goods, where the rent is more than they were worth. But if the value of the goods be more than the rent in arrear, then the rent due is the true measure of damages in such case; no interest is recoverable in either case, as the condition of the bond is Only to return the goods.
    
    
      DEBT on a replevin bond. Verdict foi plaintiff. Motion for a new trial.
    
    
      As this was a bond for the performance of covenants, the only point for the jury was the quantum of damages.
    
    
      The plaintiff proved the amount of rent in arrear, which was due by the tenant, and contended that the jury were bound to give that amount in damages against the defendant Dfl this bond; as the tenant had eloigneci, or carried off the goods seized and distrained for rent, together with interest from the day it was due.
    
    
      The defendant, on the other hand, alleged, that as he was only security on this bond, for the forthcoming of the goods levied on by the distress warrant, and which were replevied by the tenant, that their value only was the true measure of damages, and that the jury could give no more~
    
      The presiding Judge (Bay) told the jury, as the law did not appear to be clearly settled on this point, that the best general rule in his opinion, would be for the jury to give the amount of the rent in arrear; as the act of replevying the goods seized, interposed between the landlord and his right to the goods, and prevented his common law remedy by distress ; and as the delay was occasioned by the act of the tenant, he ought in justice to pay interest. The jury found accordingly the amount of rent in arrear and interest.
    This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection in the judge, and as a verdict against law.
    Mr. Cheves, in support of this motion,
    quoted Espinasse’s ‘Dig- 348. where it is said, that the sum to be recovered should only be the value of the goods distrained; also, 4 Durnford EÍ East, 483. to the same point. He observed, that in 1 Henry Blackstone’s Rep. 36. the law had been laid down to the contrary ; but in 2 Henry Blackstone’s Rep. SO. the law in vol. 1. p. 36. had been overruled, and the law in Esplnasse confirmed.
    Mr. Ford, for the plaintiff,
    insisted, that the rent in arrear -was the true measure of damages, and for that purpose quoted 6 Bacon’s Abr. (new edit.) 84. and said the case in Z Henry Blackstone, was a case against the sheriff, and therefore it was that the value of the goods was determined to be the true measure of damages, as he could not be answerable for more than their value.
   The Judges after due consideration, were of opinion, that every case of this kind must depend upon its own circumstances, which probably had occasioned the contradictory decisions mentioned in the books on this subject. They took the true rule to be this, that if the rent due be more than the value of the goods distrained, then the value of the goods should be the true measure of damages. But if the value of the goods be more than the rent in arrear, then the rent due should be the true measure. By this rule, all the parties would have substantial justice done them. If the goods were fully sufficient to pay off the rent, the landlord would gain the full benefit of his remedy ; but if, on the contrary, the goods were not sufficient, the security to the re-plevin bond would not be entrapped, or obliged to pay more than the real value of the goods he was bound to see returned. But that no interest was recoverable in either case, as the condition of the bond is only to return or redeliver the goods, or pa9 the value. That at ~all everns, a new trial must be granted, that the law may be settled on this subject.

Rule for new trial made absolute.

Present, GRm~KI~, ~AY, JoHNsoN, TREZEVANT and I3REVARD.  