
    Jeremiah Murden vs. George Perman.
    '¿lie defendant in an action on a bail bond can not be liable to a greater extent than the principal was When the ball became fixed; and the original judgment and cost at the time of the return of non invent tus is the amount for which the bail is liable.
    &.nd the bail is only liable for interest on the original judgment from the time when his liability became fixed by tile return of non inven-tus on the ca. sa. against the principal'; unless the judgment had been on a penal bond, where the interest would continue to run on, and then he would, perhaps, be chargeable with the accumulated amount.
    m JLHIS was an action of debt, on a Bail Bond, tried in Charleston, June term, 1820. Judgment had been recovered against the principal in February term, 1813, but suspended by appeal until June, 1817, when the constitutional court affirmed the judgment. A ca. sa. was then issued against the defendant, and returned “ non est in-ventus.,”
    The only question was, whether th'e bail was liable for interest or! the-original judgment from the time it was entered up, or only from the time when his liability became fixed by the return of “ non est inventus,” on.the ca. sa. against the principal.
    The presiding judge being of opinion that the1 bail was liable for interest from'the time the original judgment had been entered up, charged the jury to find to that effect; who found accordingly.
    
      This was a motion to set aside the verdict,, and to grant ■ t new trial, on the ground of the misdirection of the Court;
   Mn Justice Mott

delivered the opinion of the Coürt.

The bail to the sheriff is liable for the condemnation money and costs; (Tidd’s Prac. 220, 262. Mitchell, assignee, vs. Gibbons, 1 H. Black. 76.) And tnay be liable to thb whole extent of his bond. (Dahl. vs. Johnson, 1 B. and P. 205.) But he cannot be liable to ,a greater extent than the principal was . when the bail became fixed. If the principal had been taken on the ca. sa. He might, and in* . deed must, have beeh discharged Upon the payrtient of the original judgment^ and the costs. That was the amount then for which the bail was .liable at that time, and no more. If the judgment had been ón a penal bond where the interest would continue to tun on, he would, perhaps, have been chargeable with the accumulated arhount. But not in this case. Thb new trial therefore riiust be granted, unless the plaintiff will release the interest on the original judgment, from the time it was entered up until the return of the ca. sá. against the principal.

justices Bay, Colcock, Richardson and Huger. Cfmf3X@g&r

justice Gantt dissented.  