
    *Early v. Owen.
    Decided, March 24th, 1819.
    i. Debt-Three Mouths' Replevy Bo-id tor Refit,— An action of debt may be brought upon a three months’ replevy bon'd for rent, tho' it give back interest from the time when the rent became due, and not merely from the date of the bond; which circumstance, the Court were inclined to think, makes it not a good bond under the Statute.
    See Acts of 1792, edit. 179J. 1803 & '14, c. 89, § 1; & R. (’ode of 1819. c. 113, 1 !, Vol. 1, p. 446: Beale v. . )oY/ni::;;.:i &c. 1 Call 249; Booker’s ex'ors v. M'Eobert &c. executors of Coutts, Ibid. 243; Hewlett v. Chamberlayne. 1 Wash, 367.
    This was an action of debt, in the Superior Court of Montgomery County, upon a three months’ replevy bond given upon a distress for rent. The condition of the bond, (which bore date the 21st of September 1812,) stated that the distress was levied, for the obligor Jacobus Early’s failing to pay the rent, amounting to 1001. with interest thereon since the 25th December 1811, and costs amounting to 812 92 Cents; that he had tendered Thomas Watterson as security for the payment of the above sums at the end of three months; on which the property distrained was restored to the debtor; and the obligation was to be void on payment of the said Rent, within three months, with the interest and costs aforesaid, to the obligee Thomas Owen, his heirs or assigns,
    The declaration was in conformity with the bond. — The defendants craved oyer, and demurred generally; whereupon issue in law was joined. The Superior Court overruled the demurrer, and entered judgment for the plaintiff, for the penalty, to be discharged by the payment of 1001. with lawful interest from the 25th day of December, 1811, ’till paid, and s>12 92 Cents, and the costs. From which Judgment, the defendant Early appealed.
    Stanard for the appellant.
    Eeigh for the appellee.
    
      
      See generally, monographic note on “Debt, The Action of" appended to Davis v. Mead, 13 Gratt. 118.
    
   JUDGE ROANE

pronounced the Court’s opinion.

The Court is inclined to think that the bond declared on in this case is not a good bond under the statute; in this; that it gives back interest from the drrie when the rent became due, and does not merely commence that interest from the date of the Bond. But it is unimportant whether it be good as a statutory bond, or not. In either case, an action lies upon it, according to the uniform decisions of this Court. The giving a summary remedy by moiion does not annul the pre-existing remedy by action ; but either may be pursued (in relation to a good statutory bond) at the election of the party. With respect *to the back interest; as the bond stipulates for it’s payment, and there is certainly nothing unjust in the stipulation, the Court sees no objection to its recovery in this action, and affirms the judgment.  