
    LANSDALE vs. FINDLEY.
    on affirming a judgment on iv/nl er™r court 'wiu’not giveten/«-c«rr. darn.ases °.n'jhe ¿utS" will give tender c‘nU 011 tlle iea rior court,
    The fame ™ which diffoived ap injunftion & gave ten per cent«
    
      A. writ of error coram nobis was prosecuted by Lans-dale against Findley in the couft below, which was decided in Findley’s favor, and ten per cent, damages awarded to Findley I.ansdale appealed, and the judg-ihent was affirmed at the last term — -See ante 131.
    A question was then made whether ten per cent, damages were to be awarded by this court; and if so, on what SUrh should it be givefi.
    Talbot, for the appellee.
    — —'The object of the law was to give compensation for the suspension of a judgment, and the extraordinary expenses incurred in defending an appeal; that compensation, is ten per cent. ; that ten per cent, must be calculated on the sum actually stayed ip the appellant’s hands by the appeal. By the appeal, our original judgment at law is suspended ; we are therefore entitled to ten per cent, on the original judgment.
    
      April 16th.
    
      April 19th.
    
    Hardin, for the appellant. — In cases of this kind, the court should be careful that they do not give tpo extensive a construction to a statute, which is penal, and, in many instances, oppressive, however beneficial it may fe in others. If the law intended a compensation for suspending a judgment, that law is satisfied by ten per cent, already awarded for the suspension. Ifere has been but one suspension, though continued in two courts. The law never could intend double compensation, or rather double penalties, for seeking justice in a legal way. No case is recollected, and it is confidently believed none exists, where this court has given ten per cent, on affirming a judgment or decree, where ten per cent, wgs awarded below. And seldom, perhaps never, is there a term, but some judgments in this situation are affirmed. It not being claimed, if it has passed silently, and I presume it has, is a strong argument against it.
    But, according to the most rigid construction, you can only award ten per cent, on the ten per cent, adjudged to the appellee below.
    That is the amount of the judgment appealed from. The other, or original judgment, it is true, is suspended in its operation ; but that suspension is only a. consequence of the appeal continuing the supersedeas, awarded in thS' court below. The original judgment is not ap - pealed from ; and therefore you cannot look to the amount of it, nor award ten per cent, on the amount thereof.
    The court took until this term to consider of it, and npw
   Edwards, Ch. J.

delivered the resolution of the court. — -We are of opinion that the appellee is entitled to ten per cent, on the ten per cent, adjudged to him by the court below ; but not on the amount of the original judgment. 
      
      
         In Lowrey vs. M'Murtry, on affirming a decree which diffolved an injunction, and gave ten per cent, damages below, the court faid the principle of the above cafe governed it, and gave the like decifipn.
     