
    Early v. Moore.
    Argued Monday, March 14th, 1814.
    i. Bond — Judgment on Form — Case at Bar. — A judgment ought not to be entered on a bond for a sum of money, “subject to a credit for a hogshead of tobacco,” without ascertaining its value; but the amount of such credit should, in the first place, be ascertained by a writ of enquiry, and judgment should be rendered for the balance.
    See Rev. Code, 1st vol. ch. 66, sect. 42, p. 80.
    
      Thomas Moore, assignee of Andrew Donald, brought an action of debt against Jacobus Early. The declaration made a profert of a writing obligatory under seal, describing it as an obligation in which the defendant acknowledged, that, on a final settlement of his accounts with Andrew Donald, he owed him justly the sum of 3271. 4s. 4d. with interest from March 22d, 1804, “subject only to a credit for one hogshead of tobacco, delivered in the year 1799.” The defendant pleaded “payment,” but afterwards waved his plea ; whereupon judgment was entered against him for the said sum of money, with interest, “subject to a credit for one hogshead of tobacco, delivered in the year 1799 without ascertaining the value of the tobacco.
    To this judgment, together with the subsequent judgment on a forthcoming bond, a writ of supersedeas was awarded by a judge of the court of appeals.
    Wirt for the plaintiff in error.
    Wickham contra.
    *Thursday, April 7th, 1814,
    
      
      See generally, monographic note on “Judgments” appended to Smith v. Charlton, 8 Gratt. 425.
    
   JUDGE ROANE

pronounced the court’s opinion, that the District Court erred in rendering judgment for 3271. 4s. 4d. with interest, &c. subject to a credit of a hogshead of tobacco delivered in the year 1799, instead of having the value of that tobacco ascertained, as of that date, and rendering judgment for the balance, after the amount of that value with interest shall have been deducted.

Both judgments reversed, and the cause remanded to the superior court of law, “in order to be proceeded in subsequent to the waver of the plea.” .  