180 SALMON v. CLAGETT —3 BLAND

v Hart, 14 John 74, Skinner v. White, 17 John 367 (h) The
Court, on such a motion, gives credit to the answer only so far as it

(h) BEARD v WILLIAMS —In an action brought by the State for the use of
the Trustees of the Poor of Anne Arundel County upon a collectoi s bond
he being dead against his sureties for not having paid over the money which
had been assessed and was collected by him for the use of the poor, a
judgment was obtained in the General Court at May Term 1796 to be re
leased on the payment of £277 10s 7 3/4d cuirent money with interest of ten
per cent fiom the 1st of October 1790 and costs These trustees were
made a body politic by the Act of 1768 ch 29 And the collector s bond
was given under the Act of October 1780 ch 26 (Hanson s Laws ) by which
it is provided, that in case the collector shall fail to paj the moneys col
lected his bond may be put in suit in which proceedings maj be had to
compel payment of the money due with an interest of ten per cent from the
day appointed for payment, (1794, ch 53 s 3 a similar provision except
that only six per cent is to be recovered ) The defendants at law Matthew
Beard and others filed this bill alleging that the trustees James Williams
and others had not given to their principal the late collector all the credits
to which he was entitled and that the trustees had not been legally elected
and, therefore they were neither entitled to sue for or receive the moneys
collected Whereupon they prayed an injunction which was granted

The defendants answered and the case was brought on for a final hearing

HANSON C 10th March 1800 —This cause being submitted on the bill
answer and exhibits the same were by the Chancellor read and considered

The injunction in this cause issued was granted merely on the ground of
the complainant stating himself to be liable to be executed at law for much
more money than was fairly due As to the other ground staled in the bill
viz that there was no just foundation for the judgment at law the Chan-
cellor long since gave his opinion that if this be the case the complainant
ought to have availed himself of the point in the General Court

The Chancellor perceives not the least foundation for relief in this Court,
except what is stated by Williams, the defendant viz the payment to him
of £112 10s by Mrs Howard, &c For this sum the complainant is cer
tainly entitled to credit

On the whole it is Decreed that the injunction in this cause issued be
and it is hereby declared to be dissolved provided, that not more be levied
by execution at law against the complainant by the defendants, than the
sum of three hundred and thirty pounds fifteen shillings and eleven pence,
with the legal interest of six per centum thereon from the first day of Oc
tober, seventeen hundred and ninety six until the time of levying or pay-
ment It is further Decreed, that each party bear the proper costs

In stating the account the Chancellor has charged ten per cent interest to
May 1st, 1796, as the date of the judgment The aggregate sum is £432 9s
8d and six per cent = £10 16s 3d is charged thereon to October 1st, 1796
when credit is given for the payment as stated by the answer of £112 10s
It is the balance with interest of six per cent which is to be levied It did
not appear to the Chancellor, that the ten per cent could be charged after
judgment but that whatever was due at the time of the judgment should
form a principal on which six per cent only should be charged (Hammond
v Hammond, 2 Bland, 370 )

The following is the statement made by the Chancellor