Opinion
July Term, 1808.
A creditor is not liable for the maintenance of his debtor in jail upon a ca. sa. unless he discharges the debtor, and the debtor be unable to pay for such maintenance.
THIS was an action brought by the plaintiff as keeper of the public jail of Orange County to recover of defendant the amount of certain prison charges which had accrued by the detention in prison of one Joseph Street, confined at the instance of the defendant upon a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum. It was agreed that Street was at the time of his commitment and still continued to be possessed of property more than sufficient to pay for his own maintenance. He was in prison upon the writ aforesaid when this action was brought; and the question submitted to this Court was whether the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the maintenance of Street in prison.
From Orange.
We are not aware of any law by which the defendant in this instance is liable to pay for the maintenance of a prisoner committed on a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum. The act of 1773, ch. 4, sec. 9, relied upon for the plaintiff. seems alone to contemplate a case where the party at whose instance the prisoner is confined thinks proper to discharge him, and he should prove unable to pay his fees. But as this case states the prisoner to be fully able to pay his fees, and that he had never been discharged by defendant, the Court can perceive no ground on which the defendant can be made liable to the plaintiff's demand.
Overruled: Veal v. Flake, 32 N.C. 422.