
    *Andrew Allen against Charles D. Coxe.
    To ail action of debt on bond by A. against C , G. pleads that A., at the-time of the making of the said bond, covenanted with 0., that m case the-said A. should die before his wife, then the whole of the bond should stand, good, but if the said A. should survive his wife, then so much of the bond as binds the said C. to the payment of interest on the said bond, should be-void. The plea is a good one, and the covenant sot out is sufficient to prevent the plaintiff’s recovery on the bond.
    
      This was an action of debt, declaration on -bond in the ■common form, dated June 11, 1805, in the penalty of $1150, to pay in one year from the date, with interest, the sum of $577. Plea, “ that he ought not to have, &c., because, &c., that at the same time of the making of the said writing •obligatory in the said first count of the said declaration mentioned, to wit, on the said 11th of June, 1805, to wit, at Elemington, aforesaid, the said Andrew Allen, by his certain ■deed of defeasance, sealed with his seal, and to the court now here shewn, the date whereof is the day and year aforesaid, after reciting the said Charles D. Coxé by the name of Charles Davenport Coxe, had given his bond to the said Andrew Allen, by the name and addition of Andrew Allen, .Jun., dated June 11, 1805, for $577, with interest from the ■ day of the date thereof, did, in and by the said deed of • defeasance, witness, agree and declare, that in case the said Andrew Allen should die before his wife Maria Allen, then the whole bond should stand -good, but if the said Andrew .should survive his wife,'then so much of the bond as binds the said Charles D. Coxe, to the payment of interest on the ■said $577, should be void;” and alleges, that the bond and persons are the same, &c., and that Allen and wife are in full life.
    The plaintiff demurs to the' plea, and assigns for cause of ■demurrer, that the paper set out in the plea is no defeasance, and forms no bar to the prosecution of the action upon the bond.
    
      Southard, in support of the demurrer,
    contended, that the ■instrument set out in the plea was not a defeasance, and that ■ therefore the plaintiff might maintain his action on the bond, .and that the defendant must be left to his remedy in an action on the instrument for a breach of the,agreement, and .cited 1 Hals. 429; 1 Salk. 573.
    
      Swing, contra,
    contended, that the instrument set forth 'in the plea was -strictly and technically a defeasance. The nature of a ^defeasance, he said, was not to destroy the instrument altogether, but it might operate to delay, as well as to destroy the obligation, and cited Shep. Touch. 381. As to the case in Salk. 573, he apprehended it must have turned upon the manner of pleading; it must have been pleaded as a release; for he could see no good reason why a, man might not, by an act of equal solemnity, prevent-himself from recovering upon a bond.
   Per Curiam.

We think the plea is a good one, and that the demurrer must be overruled. No man can recover against his own covenant.

Demurrer overruled.  