case sir alexander Anstruther against christy Writ of error no supersedeas  unless the plaintiff in error put in bail S c bunb a action of debt be bring  in the court of common plea upon a contract for payment of money on SouthSea  article at the end whereof the party bind themselves to each other in such a  sum for the true performance thereof c the plaintiff have judgement the  defendant bring a writ of error in the king bench the plaintiff in the action  insist that this writ of error be no supersedeas to the execution on the  original action unless the plaintiff in error have put in bail accord to the  statute James c now as to that matter it be true that he do put in bail but  the plaintiff in the original action except against they as insufficient and  nothing far be do in order to justify they or to put in other bail and certain  be shall not be conclude by the give insufficient bail as they on the modern  report other side will have it and compare it to the case of reeve v pike  where after the defendant have put in bail he move that they may be discharge  but it be deny now this be a action of debt find on a contract for payment of  money therefore by the very word of the statute bail be requisite on a writ of  error of the judgement on such action otherwise that writ be no supersedeas to  the execution it be requisite on a action of debt on a nomin pn in a lease  though it be otherwise in replevin or covenant and the reason why it be not  require of a executor who bring a writ of error be not because it be not  requisite in the original action but because they be suppose to be ignorant of  the estate of the testator on the other side it be argue that this writ of  error be a good supersedeas and that it be not necessary to put in bail on  such a writ it be bring on a judgement obtain on a bind for nonperformance of  covenant Bulst Yelv a for wherever the debt be not direct due on the bind or  any other agreement but accrue upon the nonperformance of something collateral  to that on which the action be find there no bail be requisite cro James cro  car b and this be a bind for payment of money for nonperformance of article it  be true the bind itself be include in the very article but there be no  material difference between such a obligation and a bind or note with a  condition for performance of article for wherever the action be find on the  article there bail be not requisite and so be the case of Biddolph v temple  lev c the court the statute require that where a action be bring on a single  bill or bind or contract for payment of money only that in such case bail  shall be give which imply that it be not requisite in any other bind or  contract it be true this be a contract but it be not for payment of money only  but to pay it upon nonperformance of a agreement and so not within the  provision of this statute but though bail be not requisite to the original  action yet it must be give upon a writ of error of a judgement obtain in such  action as for instance if a action shall be bring in the court of king bench  for five pound there bail be not require but if judgement be obtain in that  action and a writ of error bring certain bail must be put in so judgement be  give that this writ of error be no supersedeas unless good bail be put in  modern report er p