
    Belser vs. Irvine.
    The plea of nil debet to debt on bond is u regular, but is a substantial plea; and if the plaintiff choose to go to trial on such an issue, he must be bound by the result; and the sum found by the Jury will be presumed to bo the amount actually due.
    Either party, in an action of debt on bond, may submit the condition. to the Jury, and where on the plea of nil debet the Jury-have found a verdict for ten cents, the Court will not after a lapse of ten years, interfere with the verdict, though an error might possibly bave been committed.
    The plaintiff obtained a verdict in May Term, 1815, in an action of debt on a replevin bond, in these words;— “We find for the plaintiff ten cents and costs.” The declaration contained the usual count on a money bond, and the plea was nil debet. The judgment was filled up as on a plea of non est factum, on a money bond, and for the amount of the penalty. Execution issued, but no proceedings took place until 1825, when an action was brought to revive the judgment. In 1826, a motion was made before Mr. Justice Gantt to set aside the judgment, as erroneously entered; but he ordered it to be amended to correspond with the pleadings. Upon application to the Clerk of the Court to have the judgment amended, he decided that it could only he entered up for ten cents. The Clerk was ruled, before Mr. Justice Bay to shew cause; and on hearing the rule, the Judge determined in conformity with the opinion of the Clerk.
    The case was now brought to this Court, on two points, viz: — 1st. That the judgment might properly be entered up for the penalty; and, 2dly. If not, that a repleader should be awarded.
    Rice, for the motion,
    cited Com. Dig. Tit. Pleader, W. (17); Pub. Laws 10. Tidd, 87; Stevens on Pleading, 118; Treasurer vs. M’Guire, Harper’s L. R. 474.
    Furman, contra.
    1 Brev. 243; Hart vs. Tobias, 2 Bay, 108; 1 M’Cord 28, 299; 3 M’Cord 98; Harp, L. R. 215; ■Chitt. P. 477; 1 Lord Ray. 169; 3 Bos. & Pul. 348; 1 Salk, 664.
   Curia per

Nott, J.

The plea of nil debet to a bond is certainly irregular, but it is, nevertheless, a substantial plea. It puts in issue the question, whether the defendant owes any thing, and how much, and if the plaintiff chooses to go to trial on such an issue, he must be bound by the result; and we are to presume that the sum found by the verdict was the s.um actually due. But suppose the plea to be a mere nullity. The plaintiff had a right to submit the condition of the bond to the Jury, and the defendant might compel him to do so, (see act of 1792, 2 Brevard, 355,) and that view of the subject will bring us to the same conclusion. The form of the verdict authorizes us to believe, that the sum assessed by the Jury, though small, were the damages really sustained by the plaintiff, or the actual amount which he was entitled to recover. And even if we were to suppose that the error may possibly exist, of which the plaintiff complains, it is his own fault, and it would be attended with the most dangerous consequences to unravel the proceedings of Courts after a lapse of ten years, for a supposed error, which is at most conjectural, and which, if it did not commence with the party complaining, has been acquiesced in by him, .until now. We might commit a still greater error by suffering the matter to be disturbed at this late day. The motion must, therefore, be refused. Motion refused.  