
    Kennedy vs. Jack.
    Knoxville,
    July, 1824.
    Bond and security is given by a plaintiff at law, to prosecute his suit with effect or pay all costs &c. The condition of the bond is complied with, if the plaintiff recovers a judgment at law against the defendant.
    ^n such case, the security will not be liable for the costs in law or equity ; although the defendant at law obtained a perpetual injunction against the judgment, and the plaintiff at law was decreed to pay all costs.
    W. Blackford sued Kennedy at law. — Jack gave bond as security for Blackford, with condition, “that Blackford should prosecute the suit, hy him instituted against Kennedy with effect — or in case of failure, pay and satisfy all costs and charges, that may accrue, by wrongfully bringing the suitf on this Kennedy has brought debt, and declared on a bond for $>250 00. Jack prays oyer of the condition, and pleads, “conditions performed.'1'1 To which Kennedy replied, that “Blackford obtained judgment against him, in the county, circuit and supreme court. But that he filed his bill in equity, and had a perpetual injunction, awarded against the same,” and a decree, that Kennedy should pay all costs in the first instance — and Blackford in the second — “and that he paid the costs accordingly, to wit, 248 50.” Jack demurred to this replication, and the circuit court supported the demurrer; and by appeal in error the cause is brought to this court. ^
   Per Curiam.

The question is, whether Jack is liable for the costs ¿warded in equity, to be paid by Kennedy, firstly, and by Blackford secondly — on his bond given at law, as security for the costs. The condition to pay all costs, &c. — must mean all costs awarded against the plaintiff at law, by a court having cognizance of the writ for which security was given, otherwise the condition is larger, that the act of 1787, ch. 19, requires or authorises. By this act, the condition should be, Ho pay defendant all 'costs and damages in case of failure to prosecute, as may be awarded against the plaintiff, by the court having cognizance^ thereof.”

A bill in equity by the defendant below, for relief upon the judgment, is a new suit, concerning the costs of which, the surety at law has nothing to do. According to this opinion, the defendant at law, relieved in equity, has no security for his costs. But it is to be remembered that a surety is as much to be favored in equity as the defendant in regard to costs — the words of a statute cannot be extended against him, for the benefit of another, who is no more favored than himself.

Affirm the judgment of the circuit court.  