
    Borgsted & Co. v. Nolan & Al.
    After the promulgation of tho act abolishing imprisonment for debt, no ca. sa. could issue; and all proc ss against tho body of the debtor being gone, the Viability of the bail ceased; as he had no longer the power of keeping or surrendering the principal debtor.
    Appeal from the commercial court of Mew Orleans.
    The plaintiffs having arrested the defendant, Molan, and held him to bail, obtained judgment against him for the amount of their demand, issued execution the 6th May, 1840, which was returned the 10th June, following, no property found.
    Before judgment, to wit, on the 16th April, 1840, the act abolishing imprisonment for debt was promulgated. Mo writ of capias ad satisfaciendum could issue, the plaintiffs took a rule on the defendant’s bail, to make him liable for the debt on the bail bond; alleging that the defendant had departed from the State contrary to the condition of the bail bond, which was now forfeited and the bail liable.
    After hearing the parties the rule was discharged; the presiding judge being of opinion, inasmuch as no ca. sa. had issued, the plaintiffs could not recover from the surety on the hail bond. The plaintiffs appealed.
    
      
      Bwtlette for the plaintiffs.
    
      Larue contra.
   [594] Moephy, J.

delivered tie opinion of the court.

Tie plaintiffs are appellants from an order discharging a rule tasen by them on W. S. Brown, to obtain judgment against him as surety of defendant on a bail bond. Tie record shows that no writ of capias ad saUsfaciendum was issued or could have issued, because a, fieri facias taken out in tie case was returned only on tie 6th of May, 1840, after tie promulgation of tie act of Assombly abolishing imprisonment for debt. Plaintiffs’ right to any writ or process against tie body of defendant being gone, it is clear that tie liability of tie bail ceased, because he had no longer the power of keeping defendant, and could not surrender him. The evidence relied on to show that tie condition of tie bond was broken by defendant’s leaving tie State in tie mean time, cannot avail plaintiffs, because tie liability of tie bail was not fixed by tie departure of tie debtor; but for tie law above mentioned, tie bail could have surrendered him at any time before judgment was rendered against himself, and his obligation was only to present the defendant on execution of tie definitive judgment in tie suit. Code of Practice, arts. 230, 231, 235; 8 Mart. M. S. 129; Acts of 1840, p. 131.

The judgment of tie commercial court is therefore affirmed, with costs.  