Case ID: njl_3/html/0121-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[*] MATLACK, WILSON and SPARKS against STOW.
    OK CERTIORARI.
    The action below was brought by Stow, a constable, against the plaintiffs in this court, as sureties of Samuel Jennings, late constable, on an execution in the hands of the plaintiff, Stow, in favor of Benjamin Tomlinson, against Jennings. On the return day of the summons, the justice, after entering the return of the summons, and the appearance of the plaintiff, made the following entry in his docket: The defendants did not appear, and it was known to me that they were said Jennings’ sureties; and the plaintiff offered an execution in evidence against said J minings, which I admitted, after which, 1 gave judgment for the plaintiff, $71.5¡. _
   By the Court.

If this action had been against Jennings himself, it could not be sustained; an officer to whom the execution is delivered, has not in himself a right of action against the defendant; much less can it be sustained against the defendants below, on the ground of their being sureties. If they are sureties under the act of Assembly, (which is to be presumed, if they are sureties at all,) they must be sued on their bond. Besides, how does it appear that this debt against Jennings, for which the execution was issued, had any connexion with the suretyship. The whole proceeding is erroneous, and must be

Reversed.