CHASE v. MANHARDT.—1 BLAND. 321

Nothing can appear to be more just and equitable than, that
when a debtor is positively prohibited front paying his creditor, or is
prevented from doing so by the overruling calamity of war. he
ought not to pay interest. Because in such case he is compelled
against his will to become the holder or bailee of the money, at his
own risk; and that too perhaps at a time and under circumstances
when it may be very unsafe to use it. or utterly impossible to de-
rive any benefit from the use of it. So far the reason is satisfac-
tory, and applies as forcibly here as any where else. Dulany v.
Wells, 3 H. & McH. 23; Court v. Vanbibber, 3 H. & McH. 144:
Bordley v. Eden, 3 H. & McH. 167.

But in this State a garnishee, in an attachment case, is not thus
absolutely tied up and restricted. He is not bound to hold the
money at his own risk and against his consent, or longer than he
chooses. Ross v. Austin ,4 Hen. & Mint. 502. Now it is upon this
very principle, of the existence of such a positive restriction, that
the rule of the Pennsylvania law is based. It is, that the restric-
tion imposed by attachment is altogether analogous to that prohi-
bition imposed by a positive law. or a public war. This may be
so there, but here it is otherwise.

I take it to be the established law of this State, that the de-
fendant, in all actions founded on contract for the recovery of a
debt, may have leave as a matter of course to bring the sum sued
for into Court; and thus put a stop to the further accumulation of
interest and costs, at least for so much as he brings in. Tidd
Prac. 501. In those cases where the debt carries interest accord-
ing to law, the mere bringing ofi an action for the recovery of it
does not suspend the accumulation of interest for a single moment.
Because it is the duty of the debtor to seek his creditor and make
payment, and if he fails to do so he is liable to be sued, and is
chargeable with * interest on the ground of his neglect.
But if being sued he contests the claim, then he is charge 344
able on the stronger ground of his wilful opposition and denial of
justice.

It is difficult to conceive what pretension a garnishee can have
to stand in a better predicament than a defendant debtor. He is
cited as a debtor; and is called into Court certainly in that char-
acter, although not by that name and in that form. It is often
said, that the object of our " attachment acts and practice," is to
enforce an appearance. It may with as much propriety be said,
that their intention is to compel a plea or any entry upon the
docket. Their true and only object is to enable a creditor to obtain
satisfaction out of any property found in this State belonging to
his absent or absconding debtor; and for that purpose they have
provided "a special auxiliary remedy for the recovery of debts;"
Burk v. McClain, I H. & McH. 230; Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. &
McH. 535; Daviditon's .Lessee v. Beatty, 3 H. & McH. 594; Shivers
21 1B.