
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1805.
    Montgomery v. Harson.
    If, before judgment obtained, the debt is paid to the plaintiff (for whicfl the action was brought) and a release given, without noticing the costs» the plaintiff shall not have judgment for the costs alone.
    
      Sum. Process on a note of hand, brought before Wilds, J. in the district of Fairfield. It appeared, that prior to the cause being brought before the court for trial, the defendant had confessed a judgment for the sum due, according to the note, with interest, but no judgment had been entered up thereon ; and, that the defendant had, afterwards, paid the plaintiff the said sum so confessed, and took his receipt for the same, as in full for the debt in the said case. The costs not being paid, the plaintiff moved to have a decree in his favor for the costs ; but, Wilds, J. refused to give a decree, as the debt was paid, and nothing appeared to be due him, for which he was intitled to judgment. The motion in this court was to correct lhe decision of the district court, and to obtain judgment for the costs which had accrued, before the payment of the debt by lité .defendant.
   Sed per curiam.

(Grimke, Waties, and Brevard, Justices.)

Costs follow the judgment; but, as the debt was satisfied before judgment, the plaintiff is not intitled to judgment for the costs alone.The receipt of the money, in full satisfaction of the debt, discharges the defendant, and operates as a release of the action; and, consequently, each party must bear his own expenses of the suit.

Bay, J.

dissented. He was of opinion, that as the costs might have been claimed by the plaintiff, when he received the money in Satisfaction of the debt, and did not, probably from inattention, without any thought that he could not afterwards exact them from the defendant, before the process would be dismissed, he was, there, fore, intitled to a decree for the costs only; the debt being before ■satisfied. ■

Motion dismissed.  