
    M’Clung v. Arbuckle.
    Decided, March 11th, 1819.
    i. Bond — Suit by Assignee against Assignor — Judgment on Bond Enjoined. — The assignee of a bond can not recover against the assignor, upon a declaration stating that the plaintiff brought suit, and obtained a judgment, which was injoined. upon a bill claiming equitable discounts, on account of certain dealings and transactions between the obligor and the assignor before the assignment: and that the plaintiff was thereby entirely debarred from collecting the debt;-with out stating that the injunction was made perpetual, or what proceedings took place thereon.
    A bill penal, executed by Andrew M’Clung to Charles M’Clung, was assigned by the latter to Charles Arbuckle, who brought suit upon it, and obtained a judgment; to stay proceedings on which, a bill of injunction was filed in the Superior Court of Chancery, holden at Bewisburg; whereupon, the said Arbuckle brought as-sumpsit in the Superior Court of law for Greenbrier County, against Charles M’Clung the assignor, setting forth in his declaration the assignment, the proceedings and judgment in his suit against Andrew M’Clung the obligor, and the granting of the injunction, upon a Bill “claiming equitable discounts, against the said writing obligatory, on account of certain dealings and transactions which had taken place between the said Andrew and the said defendant, (as was alledged,) before the assignment thereof to the plaintiff;”— “and that the plaintiff was thereby entirely debarred from collecting said sum of money from the said Andrew M’Clung”; without stating that the said Injunction was made perpetual, or any proceedings thereon.
    The declaration contained also a Count for money laid out and expended and another for money had and received.
    The defendant, to the first Count, filed a general demurrer, on which issue in law was joined; but, on argument, the Court overruled it. He then pleaded non assump-sit ; whereupon, a verdict being found, and judgment entered against him, he appealed to this Court.
    
      *After argument, by Wickham for the appellant, and Stanard for the appellee,
    
      
      See generally, monographic note on “Bonds” appended to Ward v. Churn, 18 Gratt. 801; monographic note on “Assignments” appended to Ragsdale v. Hagy, 9 Gratt. 409.
    
   JUDGE ROANE

pronounced' the Court’s opinion that the judgment be reversed, and entered, for the appellant, upon the demurrer, that the appellee take nothing &c.  