
    TAUL vs. MOORE.
    
    lithe jury m án a£tion of debt on a fingle bill ini nominal damages,the clerk ihould enter the judgment forche principal debt, with ¡ntereft from the time 'it became due* and the dama* ges — See aífs of 1799,0(1.17, %2,p. 41.
    
      THIS Wás an aetion of debt, On a single bill ; judg-toeht by nil 'dieit, and%rit of inquiry; verdict for plaintiff for the debt in toe declaratiónmentfoned, rtnd tore penny damage. Judgment thereupon was, entered, for “ &4.00, the debt in the declaration mentioned ; the dar mages aforesaid by the jurors aforesaid in the.ir verdict assessed, and his eosts about his suit in this behalf, expended ; and the said defendant in mercy, See.
    “ Note. — The said ¾ 400, die debt in the declaration mentioned, is to bear legal interest from the first day of October 1803, until paid, and costs. But. to have credit,’’ Sec. Sec. for several sums paid at several dates.
    Upon this judgment Taul suedouta writ of error, and obtained a su.persede.as, assigning for error,
    1st- The jury have found one penny damages, and judgment is entered for interest from die time the note declared on became due.
    2nd* The judgment is, not warranted by the finding of the jury.
    3rd. It was illegal ,to render judgment for interest.
    4th* Btrt if ⅛ were not illegal, the, manner in which it has been entered up is informal and contrary to la\y.
    
      Clay, for plaintiff.
    — The judgment is erroneous as to interest. As the jury did not find more than one penny damage, no more could be recovered in addition to the debt. The universal practice, almost without exception, has been for the juries to find the interest in damages, on single bills ; andpot having íound more here, the court' ought to presume that they had proof of the payment of the interest.
    
      Bibb, contra.
    — I rely upqn ,the act of the Kentucky, legislature, as placing single bills on the same standing as penal bills (See act of 1 "99, ch. 17, § 2, page 41), And upon the latter the general and regular practice, is, for the jury to find nominal damages, a cent or a penny, and judgment is then entered for the penalty, being the, debt in the declaration, and the damages by the jurors., assessed, and costs. Then comes the condition, that the, judgment may be discharged by the principal sum, with, interest thereon, together with the damages assessed, and the costs ; and if any payments have been made, the respective dates and sums are noted ; so that the judgment in this case has been entered by a skilful and intelligent clerk, in strict form,, and agreeable to the right, of, tfie case.
    As to the presumption contended for, that proof of payment of the interest induced the jury to find no mpre-damage, I reply, that the same presumption would equal* Iy hold as to verdicts op penal bills : but such presump* tion is repelled in this case by the note of the several credits. Moreover, if due proof of other payments had been offered to ,the jury, and not allowed by them, or not attended to by the clerk in entering up the judgment, in as much as all proof is in the presence of the court, the first case would have been the proper ground of a mo* tion for a new trial, and the latter for correcting the misprision or oversight in entering the judgment: but this record does not exhibit either case ; and this court cannot presume premises whereby to reverse a judgment. Every thing is to be presumed in support of it, but nothing against it.
    Clay, in reply.
    — The act cited is only directory to the clerk, not to the court. It only applies where an office judgment is confirmed by the clerk, who is the ministerial officer of the court, without the intervention of ajury, It does not appear to be applicable to the present case. In cases of single bills, where the payments have exceeded the interest, the mode practised has been for the juries to find the debt, to be‘discharged by the balance in damages.
    
      April 27th.
    
    
      
       See note to the cafe of Cunningham vs. Caldwell,.poft.
      
    
   Grundy, Ch. J.

delivered the following opinion of the courtIn this case the plaintiff in this court had, on the 28th day of June 1803, executed to the defendant his single bill, under seal, for the payment of S 400, on the first day of October next ensuing the date of said writing. On this obligation suit was brought in the Pulaski circuit court, and the jury who were called to assess the damages upon a writ of inquiry found for the plaintiff ¾> 400, the debt in the declaration mentioned, and also one penny damages, besides his costs ; upon which ver-, diet the court entered judgment for the debt in the declaration mentioned, and also the legal interest on that sum from the time the same was due and payable, until the payment should be made. The single question for the decision of this court, is, "whether the court wrere jus-, tified by the verdict in entering such judgment ? This, court will observe, that the same reasons which influenced the decision in the case Littell vs. Hord , upon the question of interest there made, apply with equal force in this case ; for it evidently appears from the act pf assembly passed in 1799, that single bills were inten». ded, as to interest, to be put upon the same footing with penal bonds; and upon such a finding of the jury on a writing of the latter description, it has always been the practice to find the verdict as in this case, and to enter up a similar judgment. And were the court to determine, as has been contended, that the jury should find the interest in damages, the consequence would be, that notwithstanding the legislature have declared that all debts founded on any specialty, bill, or note, in writing, ascertaining the demand, shall carry interest in the same manner as debts due on a bond or bill with a penalty, under seal; we should, in direct opposition to this legislative declaration, say that they should not carry interest in the same manner ; for were the jury to find the interest in damages, the creditor would lose all the interest accruing between the rendition of the verdict and the payment of the money, or at least until a replevy bond was given.-.Judgment affirmed. 
      
      ⅜) Ante, 81.
     
      
       The fame point was decided in the cafes oí Berry vs. Cunningham, and Blanton, &c. vs. Birney, fpring term, 1808*.
     