James S. Colburn and Another versus Shubael Downes.
A bail bond was holden sufficient, although the Christian names of both the plain tiffs were mistaken in the bond.
This was a scire facias to have execution against the defendant as bail for one Thomas Burton. The plaintiffs allege that they, James S. Colburn and William Gill, commenced their action against Burton, and that the defendant, Downes, with one John T. Downes, since deceased, was bail and surety for said Burton, not only foi his appearance to answer the plaintiffs, by the names of John S
*28
Colburn and George W. Gill, upon the process aforesaid, but also for his abiding the judgment, &c.
* The defendant pleaded that he never became bail, and tendered.an issue to the country ; and the same, being joined by the plaintiffs, came on for trial at the last November term in this county, before Parker, J.
The plaintiffs produced the bail bond, in which was the misnomer above recited; but the plaintiffs were therein truly described as “ of Boston-, in the county of Suffolk, merchants and copartners in trade, jointly negotiating in business under the firm of Colburn fy Gill.” The objection of the defendant to reading the same in evidence being overruled by the judge, the cause was taken from the jury; the defendant suffered a default, subject to the opinion of the Court on the above direction of the judge.
Per Curiam.
The bond is unquestionably sufficient to hold the defendant. Notwithstanding the extreme carelessness of the sheriff, or his clerk, the bond contains a sufficient description of the plaintiffs. Let the execution issue, as prayed for.
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
[A bail bond with blank condition is void. — Perny vs. Dobbins, 2 Bai. 343. — Acc. Holding vs. Raphael, 5 Nev. M. 655.
See Bay vs. Hall, 7 Holst. 204. — Handley vs. Ewins, 4 Bibb, 505.— Saunders vs. Hughes, 2 Bai. 504.— Grottick vs. Phillips, 9 Bing. 721. — F. H.]