
    Elisha Bennet against John M‘Fall.
    If one sue upmaniiwhicMs ííot negotiable, in the gfnaf contracting thfsuitl'theCTsts ?fafntiffroa“d ÍÓ™iom thersa°signment was to^e’regarded a? asent
    
      John M-Fall, the defendant, had formerly com-7 7 J menced an action, in the name of Moses Holland, # . . i aga^n®l the plain tin, on the trial ot which, judgment was given for the defendant. The costs then taxed, and an execution issued against Moses Holland, the nominal plaintiff which was returned mllu bom.
    
    This action was then brought against John M-Fall, to recover the costs against him. On the trial, the assignment of the demand on which the first action was brought, was produced; by it, Holland assigned to M'Fall all his right, and empowered him to sue for and collect the same, to his own use. The presiding Judge decided that the action could not be maintained, and gave a decree for defendant. The plaintiff now moves to reverse the decision, and grant a new trial, on the ground that it is contrary to law.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcocic.

There can be no principle of law produced in support of this action. The demand was not negotiable in its nature, and the present defendant is to be considered as the agent of Holland, by whose authority he brought the first action The principal is answerable for the acts of his agent; but not the agent for those of his principal. If M'-Fall had not sued the plaintiff, Holland would have done so. No injury, then, has resulted to JBennet from the acts of M-Fall alone, and of course no responsibility can attach to him. The motion is rejected.

Grimke, JYott, and Johnson, J. concurred.  