
    *Gibbon & al. v. Jameson’s Ex’ors.
    [October, 1804.]
    Debt — Military Certificates. — If the writ is covenant and the declaration in debt for military certificates, it is error, as debt does not lie for military certificates.
    Jameson’s executors brought covenant, and declared in debt for military certificates ; the defendants failed to appear; and upon executing the writ of enquiry, the jury assessed damages for the plaintiffs; and the court gave judgment for the same and costs. To which judgment, the common bail obtained a writ of supersedeas from the court of appeals; and assigned for error, 1. That the action was debt. 2. That judgment was rendered for damages, instead of debt.
    Wickham, for the appellants.
    The declaration being in debt, the action was necessarily an action of debt, and not covenant. Por the declaration cannot be supported as an action of covenant. 1 Wash. 232. Debt can only be for money, or tobacco, and not for military certificates. If it be said that it is in effect detinue, then I contend, that only he, who has property, can maintain the action : It will not lie for a contract. Graves v. Webb, 1 Call, 443. Equity will not decree a specific performance of a contract for stock; because it lies in damages, and one parcel of the same kind of stock is as good as another. Therefore in Graves v. Graves, 1 Wash. 1, the value of the stock, at the time when it ought to have been delivered, was declared to be the rule by this court. The value of the subject ought to have been laid in the declaration: But if it be debt, then bail was not requirable, and therefore the plaintiff ought to have taken judgment against the principal only, and not against the principal and the bail both. But if the action was sustainable on these pleadings, still judgment should have been entered for the penalty to be discharged by the thing itself.
    *Williams contra.
    The judgment in this case being against several, two alone could not bring error. After verdict the court will reject the debit in the declaration; and then it will be an action in the detinet only; which would lie. 1 Sid. 379; 2 Bac. 289. Thus an action in the detinet lies for money due by a foreign judgment, or for a horse, &c. The judgment is rightly entered. If the writ was in covenant, bail was demandable; and therefore as the defendant did not move to plead without special bail, he cannot now take advantage.
    Wickham, in reply.
    In Armstead v. Marks, 1 Wash. 325, the deputy sheriff only brought error, although the judgment was against the principal also; Besides the act of assembly allows any person injured to appeal; and the practice of the court has always been in conformity to it. Hence it frequently happens that the principal wishes to appeal, but the security not: Yet it has always been considered that the principal might appeal, notwithstanding. The claim lay in contract altogether; for the particular certificates were not identified; and therefore it does not resemble the cases of the horse, &c. There was no necessity to applj for leave to appear without bail. Ruffin v. Call, 2 Wash. 181.
    Cur. adv. vult.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Debt, The Action of” appended to Davis v. Mead, 13 Gratt. 118.
    
   PER CUR.

Reverse the judgment; because an action of debt does not lie for military certificates. 
      
      1 was not in court when the j udgment was given; but Mr. Williams told me it was reversed on account of the insufficiency of the declaration. He was mistaken, however, according to judge Tucker’s note book; which gives the reason, as above mentioned.
     