
    Mosby v. Taylor.
    October, 1820.
    Equitable Relief — Penalty—Back Interest. — A court of equity will relieve against back interest secured by way ol penalty.
    W. and L. Mosby by their bill in the Richmond Chancery, prayed an injunction to prevent farther proceedings on two forthcoming bonds, executed by them to Taylor, on the ground, that the penal bills on which the judgments at law had been rendered, were altered after delivery, without the knowledg-e of the plaintiffs, which prevented their making the proper defence against the back interest in the court of law. The bills on which the judgments were obtained, were ‘ ‘to pay by a given day, with interest from a prior day if not punctually paid, and then followed a penaltj' of double the amount of the '“'debt. The erasure alleged was of the words “if not punctually paid,” which had the mark of a pen drawn over them. To prove that the erasure was before delivery, several affidavits, and a third penal bill executed at the same time, and for part of the same debt, were offered in evidence. The answer denied that the erasure was after delivery. The Chancellor dissolved the injunction, and Mosby appealed.
    J. Robertson and S. Taylor, for the appellants.
    The injunction was dissolved for want of sufficient proof that the erasure was after delivery. We maintain the proof is adequate; and Waller v. lyong() shews, that a note or bond purporting to bear interest from the date if not punctually paid, is a contract with a penalty for default, against which a court of equity will relieve. If it be said that there is no occasion to come into equity for the erasure, which is a forgery that cannot alter the contract at law, the answer is, that the penalty gives jurisdiction; and the party should stand in the same situation in equity, that he would have done in a court of law, had the contract remained unaltered.
    Leigh, contra.
    One comes into equity on the conscience of his case. The plaintiff admits he owes the debt: and that he would pay the back interest, if he was not punctual in the payment of the principal. The injunction too, was for the whole debt, when 1 here is no dispute except as to the back interest. Waller v. Long, is a technical exception founded on the particular penalty, it has no application to a case like this. There is here no proof that the erasure was after delivery, which is the foundation of the defence.
    
      
      (a) (5 Muni. 71.
    
   ROANE, Judge.

The decree is to be reversed ; the injunction reinstated, and made perpetual as to the back interest, and to be affirmed for the residue. 
      
      Brooke absent.
     