
    Trent v. Calderwood.
    A surety on a twelve-months’ bond is not subrogated, on paying it, to an equivalent portion of the judgment under which the property for which the bond was given was adjudicated, but only to the rights of the creditor of the bond itself. Per Cwiam .- The debt created by the judgment is not the same as that represented by the bond. The surety who pays the bond has none of the rights of mortgage which the judgment itself imports.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Ouachita, Selfo/, J.
    
      McGwire and Ray, for the appellant. Copley, surety on the twelve-months’ bond, pro se. Stillman and Purvis, on the same side.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Etjstis, C. J.

The only question in this case, is whether a surety on a twelve-months’ bond is subrogated, on paying it, to the equivalent portion of the judgment under which the property for which the bond was given was adjudicated, or only to the rights of the creditor of the bond itself.

The debt created by the judgment is not the same represented by the bond. The surety who pays the bond is subrogated to all the rights appertaining to it, but can have no rights of mortgage, which the judgment itself imports. We understand this to have been held in the case of Coons, Curator, v. Graham, Curator, 12 Rob. 209. Such is our view of the law in relation to payment with subrogation.

The opinion of the court prepared in the case of the Succession of Harkins, ante p. 923, supersedes the necessity of any remarks concerning the attorney in this case being a witness.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the petition of Copley dismissed, with costs of the opposition in both courts.  