
    Greenlief Webb, qui tam, v. William Long.
    The statute of 1821, — SI. St. 266, — which imposed a penalty for being party toa fraudulent note, or judgment,.continued in force until July, 1840, and all penalties incurred therefor prior to that time accrued subject to the provisions of that statute.
    Under that statute the whole amount of a judgment was forfeited, though but part of the consideration was fraudulent.
    This was an action brought to recover the penalty, imposed by the statute of Nov. 15, 1821, for being party to a fraudulent judgment. The action was referred, and the referee reported, in substance, that, on the 23d day of April, 1840, the plaintiff was a creditor of one James Long, that the said James was then the owner of certain cattle, which were of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, that the said James, on that day, executed a note to the defendant for $416.77, of which the sum of $150 was fraudulent, and without consideration, that the .said James then confessed judgment before a justice of the peace upon said note, and the defendant took out an execution upon said judgment and caused the said cattle to be sold thereon, that all this was done, both by James Long and the • defendant, to defraud the plaintiff of his said debt, and' that the defendant had justified the said note and judgment, as having been bona fide and upon good consideration.
    The referee submitted two questions to the decision of the court, which were raised before him by the defendant, — one of which was, whether the statute of Nov. 15, 1821, on which this action was founded, was in force on the 23d day of April, 1840, and the other was, whether the defendant, under the facts found, had forfeited the whole amount of the judgment, being $416.77, or whether he had only forfeited that portion of it which was fraudulent and without consideration, being $150.00.
    The county court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $416.-77; to which decision the defendant excepted.
    On the part of the defendant the case was submitted without argument.
    
      
      W. Hey wood, Jr., for plaintiff.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Williams, Ch. J.

The defendant attempts to raise but two questions in this case, and to neither of them can we attach much importance. '

Whether, by the repeal of the act of the legislature of 1821, against fraudulent conveyances, 'the plaintiff’s claim was not discharged. The fraudulent note, to which the defendant was a party, was executed the 23d of April, 1840. The statute, which repealed the act of 1821, was not to take effect until July, 1840, until which time the statute of 1821 continued in force; and, by the repealing act, no penalty, or forfeiture, accrued before the statute was repealed, was to be affected by the repeal; and we cannot see any question arising on this state of the law. The law, under which the forfeiture accrued, was in force in April, 1840, and the penalty was saved to the party aggrieved, by the terms of the repealing act.

The other question, as to the amount of the forfeiture, was decided in the case of Wright q. t. v. Eldred, 2 Aik. 401. One of the points made in that case was as to the amount of the forfeiture, and it was holden that the whole amount of the judgment was forfeited, though but part of the consideration was fraudulent.

The judgment of the county court is therefore affirmed.  