
    Ross v. Austin.
    February Term, 1810.
    1. Decree against Absent Defendant — Time to Show Cause against. — The time allowed by a decree against an absent defendant, within which he might shew cause against it, having expired, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the decree without giving the security originally required by it.
    2. Decree against Home Defendant — Interest—Tender. —A home defendant, decreed to pay money to a creditor of an absent defendant will be compelled to pay interest, unless he make a legal tender, or bring the money into Court.
    In this case there was a decree for the plaintiff in June, 1802, against Austin, as an absent debtor; and the home defendants were decreed to pay to the plaintiff, on that account, 501. with interest from the 1st March, 1796, and costs; upon condition that the plaintiff gave bond and security to restore to the absentee the sum aforesaid with its interest, in case he should claim the same and be adjudged *entitled thereto: the absentee died: and the security, by the plaintiff, was not given ; and the time, within which the absentee or his representatives might make their appearance, having expired, the question was whether, to entitle the plaintiff now to the benefit of this decree, it was necessary to give the security: and, if it was not, whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Decrees” appended to Evans v. Spurgin, 11 Gratt. 615.
    
    
      
      See monographic note on “Tender.” The principal case is cited in Darby v. Gilligan, 37 W. Va. 66, 16 S. E. Rep. 511.
    
   By the Chancellor.

It is too late now to open the decree, and therefore it is not necessary for the plaintiff to give the security thereby required.

As to interest: the home defendants might by a legal tender have exempted themselves from it, or they might have brought the money into Court; but, as they have done neither, but hold the use of the money, they must pay the interest upon it.  