
    
      The State vs. Bird, Murphy, et al.
    
    Where a commissioner in equity, after he had resigned his office, and before a successor had been appointed, received money on a bond which he had taken as commissioner — Held, that his sureties were liable for the money thus received.
    The sureties of a commissioner in equity are not liable for interest on money received by him until demand, whether such money was received before or after he went out of office.
    This was an action of debt, against the sureties on the official bond of B. M. Pearson, late commissioner in equity, tried before Butler, J. at Union. The jury, under the instructions of the presiding Judge, found a special verdict as follows, to wit.
    “We find the writing obligatory within declared upon, to be the deed of the defendants, and upon the condition of the bond being submitted to us, as upon a writ of en-quiry, we find for the plaintiff $226,40. We further find that B. M. Pearson, late commissioner in equity, received on the bond of Samuel Pickering, made payable to the said B. M. Pearson whilst commissioner in equity, the sum of $283,85, on the 18th October, 1834. We further find, that at the time Pearson received the said sum, he had put his resignation in the post office, and after he was elected to the Legislature. We further find that no successor to said Pearson was elected or appointed until December, 1834. We further find that said Pearson signed a receipt for said sum of money as ex-commissioner. If, upon the foregoing facts, the defendants are liable, then we find for the plaintiff the said sum of $283,85, with interest from the 4th March, 1842, in addition to the said sum of $226, 40; otherwise we find for the defendants, as to the said sum of $283,85, with interest aforesaid.”
    His Honor ordered the postea to be delivered to the plaintiff for $226,40, the amount paid to Pearson while he was in office.
    The plaintiff appealed, on the grounds,
    1. Because the postea ought to have been delivered to the plaintiff for both sums of money.
    
      2. Because the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the sum Pearson received after he had put his resignation in the post office, from the time he received it, and on the other sum, from the first Court of Equity after he received it.
    
      Herndon, for the motion.
    
      Thomson, contra.
   Curia, per Butler, J.

Under the authority of the case of Lowndes vs. Pinckney, 1 Rich. Eq. 155, we think the postea should be awarded to the plaintiff, not only for the sum of two hundred and twenty six dollars and forty cents, as directed by the circuit Judge, but also for the sum of two hundred and eighty threee dollars and eighty five cents, together with interest on both of these sums from the time of demand, to wit, the 4th of March, 1842. According to this opinion the motion to modify the judgment below is granted.

Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.  