Claiborne County MsArchives Court.....Eastin, Vs. Vandorn 1834
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ms/msfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 2, 2008, 7:43 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases - Mississippi
Written: 1834

June Term 1826.

R. EASTIN, for the use of JOHN FOSTER, vs. PETER A. VANDORN.

Judgments obtained in 1806 do not carry interest.

Statutes regulating interest should not have a retrospective effect.

Upon a judgment revived by scire facias the execution should issue on the 
original judgment.

OPINION OF THE COURT — by the Hon. EDWARD TURNER.

This appears to be a motion made on the return of a fieri facias, on a 
judgment in the superior court of Claiborne county, revived by scire 
facias "to prevent the calculation of interest on the original judgment from 
its date in 1806." The record sent up being incomplete, and the nature of the 
motion not allowing us to decide on the errors in the record, and proceedings 
in the cause, if any there be, up to the final judgment on the scire facias to 
revive, we shall decide but a single point in the case; and that appears in 
the execution and endorsements thereon, made by the clerk, which issued after 
the judgment of revival, returnable to the last April term of the Claiborne 
circuit court, (a copy of which is before us.) 

The original judgment was had on the 3d of March, 1806, for $143 28 1/2 debt, 
the judgment on the scire facias to revive was had on the 24th of October, 
1825, for the said debt with interest thereon, from the 3d of March, 1806, to 
the 24th of October, 1826, amounting to $168 81 1/2 besides costs. The 
execution in question, issued for the debt, the interest thereon and costs, 
and the sheriff is commanded "to make the same" with interest on said sums, at 
the rate of eight per cent. per annum, from the 24th of October until paid.

The statutes which allowed interest in the Mississippi territory previous to 
March, 1806, are not before us, nor does it appear, when the original debt was 
contracted, or what rate of interest it carried. We know however, that no 
statute allowed interest on judgments, previous to the act of the 18th of 
December, 1811, which statute allowed interest on judgments at the rate of six 
per cent. per annum, without receiving the rate of interest on the debt or 
demand on which such judgment was had.

The act of 1822, regulating and establishing the rate of interest for this 
State, provides "that on all judgments and decrees founded on contracts, debts 
or demands, bearing interest, the rate of interest shall be the same as that 
allowed by law on the contract, debt or demand, on which such judgment or 
decree shall be founded; and on judgments and decrees, in all other cases, the 
rate of interest shall be eight per cent. per annum." 
Vide, Rev. Code, p. 461.

The subject of interest is one of statutory creation. Interest was not allowed 
by the common law. As judgments, in March, 1806, did not by any statutory 
provision bear interest, the clerk erred in issuing his execution for interest 
on the judgment. But admitting that the judgments of 1806 bear interest, the 
clerk also erred in issuing execution for interest at the rate of eight per 
cent. It has been long settled in England, that statutes allowing, increasing 
or diminishing the rate of interest, have not a retrospective operation. 5 
Bac. Abr. Title Usury, p. 407. Hawkins P. C. p. 246. We recognize that as a 
sound rule of law, independent of the provision in our constitution, which 
provides that "no law shall be passed, imposing the obligation of contracts." 
The execution in this case must therefore be quashed.

We cannot, under the present motion, give a decisive opinion, as to the 
judgment of 1806 carrying interest, as the record is not before us, by appeal 
a writ of error. It appears by the execution, that the interest given on the 
original judgment, made part of the judgment of the court on the scire facias 
reviving the judgment. If that be true, and if an error at all, it is an error 
in the judgment of the court, which can come before this court only by a writ 
of error or appeal. We can only intimate our present impression, that the only 
judgment which the court should give in favor of a plaintiff on a scire facias 
to revive, is, that the plaintiff have his execution as prayed for; that no 
damages are assessable, and that execution issue on the original and not on 
the new judgment, which is only a judgment of revival.

Whether interest was allowed in any shape on judgments previous to the act of 
December, 1811, and if it was, in what mode, or in what action it could be 
recovered, are questions of some difficulty, and which we do not feel 
ourselves required, by the present case as submitted to us, to decide.

Execution quashed.

Judges Child and Black concurred.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi; 1818 - 1832; 
By R. J. Walker, Reporter of the State. Natchez: Printed at the Courier and 
Journal Office, 1834.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ms/claiborne/court/eastin102gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/msfiles/

File size: 5.4 Kb