
    Baird v. Peter.
    Friday, May 15th, 1813.
    i. Interest — Execution for — Statute,—Under the act of January 29th 1805, “to reform the practice of the district, county, and corporation courts in certain cases,” judgment may be entered, as well as execution issued, for interest, though not mentioned in the writing, and not demanded by the declaration.
    See Wallace & others v. Baker, 2 Munf. 334, to the same effect.
    In an action of debt, on a single bill bearing date the 16th of April 1807, for the sum of $300, payable the 16th of January ensuing ; interest was not demanded in the declaration, nor promised in the specialty. A judgment was entered in the ¡clerk’s office, and confirmed, against the defendant for $300, with legal interest thereon, from the 16th of January 1808 ; — to which a writ of supersedeas was awarded by a judge of this court.
    George K. Taylor, for the plaintiff in error, submitted the case.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Executions” appended to Paine v. Tutwiler, 27 Gratt. 440.
      The principal case is cited with approval in Metcalfe v. Battaile, 1 Gilm. 193.
    
   Thursday, October 21st 1813, the president pronounced the court’s opinion, that, although prior to the act of 1805, ch. 67, it would have been irregular, in a case like the present, to have rendered judgment for interest, when none was demanded in the declaration ; yet, that act having made it the duty of the clerk to issue execution for the principal sum due, with interest from the time the bill became payable until payment thereof, it was not error for the judgment of the court to conform thereto ; and this the rather because no injury is thereby done to the party defendant. On this ground, the court affirms the judgment of the District Court. 
      
       Note. Rev. Code, 2d vol. ch. 57, p. 82.
     