
    A. & W. Hall v. Whyriott Moye. David Myers v. Same.
    Since the act of 1815, if a debtor confined under a ca. sa. is discharged with his own consent, the lien of a previous fi. fa. is revived, as well as the lien of the judgment.
    Appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Evans, at Columbia, Spring Term, 1830.
    
      Acts of 1815, p.as.
    The plaintiffs A. & W. Hall, obtained judgment against the defendant, and lodged a ft. fa. in April, 1822. In January, 1823, they lodged a ca. sa. under which the defendant was arrested, and shortly afterwards discharged, with his own consent.
    The plaintiff, Myers, obtained judgment in March, 1823, and lodged a ft. fa. which was renewed from time to time, and under which certain personal effects of the defendant were levied, and sold by the sheriff in 1830.
    This was a rule upon the sheriff to shew cause why the moneys so made should not be paid over to the ft. fa. of the plaintiffs, A. & W. Hall. His Honour held, that executions were within the operation of the act of 1815, although not expressly mentioned, and made the rule absolute. From this decision the plaintiff, Myers, appealed, and now moved to discharge the rule.
    Gregg, for the motion.
    Cited Mairs v. Smith, 3 M’C. 52. Cohen v. Grier, 4 M’C. 509, and contended that at common law, arrest under a ca. sa. was a satisfaction of the debt, and that there was no statute affecting the common law rule as to this case : That the statute 21 Jac. 1. c. 24. P. L. 75, did not apply: That executions were not mentioned in the act of 1815, and being in derogation of the common law, that act was to be construed strictly.
    M’Cord, contra.
    
    The act of 1815 was made infavormn libertatis, and is to be construed beneficially. Its object was to enable creditors to be humane to debtors, without impairing their own rights. The act reserves the lien of the creditor’s judgment, and it would be nugatory if it did not preserve both the energy and the lien of the execution, by which it is to be enforced.
   Per Curiam.

We concur in opinion with the presiding Judge.

Motion refused.  