CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV., 1816.
Elisha Bennet v. John M’Fall.
No action will lie against the assignee to recover costs of a judgment against the assignor.
John M’Fall, the defendant, had formerly commenced an action in the name of Moses Holland, against the plaintiff, on the trial of *559which, judgment was given for the defendant. The costs were then taxed, and an execution issued against Moses Holland, the nominal plaintiff, which was returned nulla bona. - This action was then brought ageinst John M’Fall, to recover the costs against him. On the trial, the assignment of the demand, on which the first action was brought, was produced ; by it, Holland assigned to M’Fall all his right, and empowered him to sue for, and collect the same to his own use. The presiding judge decided that the action could not be maintained, and gave a decree for defendant.
Taylor, and Harrison, for the motion. Bowie, contra.
Cqlcock, J.
There can be no principle of law produced in support of this action. The demand was not negotiable in its nature, and the present defendant is to be considered as the agent of Holland, by whose authority he brought the first action. The principal is answerable for the acts of his agent, but not the agent for those of his principal.
If M’Fall had not sued the plaintiff, Holland would have done so. No injury, then, has resulted to Bennet, for the acts of M’Fall alone ; and, of course, no responsibility can attach to him. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the motion should be rejected.
Grimke, Nott, and Johnson, Js., concurred. Gantt, dissented.