#### WALL and HOLTON *vs.*JARROTT and als.

December 1842.

On motion for a judgment against the sureties in the bond of a debtor, given under the insolvent debtor’s law, it was objected that the Christian names of the plaintiffs \vere not inserted in either the warrant, judgment or *ca. sa. Held,*that this was not a Valid objection, as the imperfection was cured after judgment, by our Statute of Amendments, and the *ca. sa.*properly pursued the judgment, and gave the officer authority to make the arrest and take the bond.

It was objected, *secondly,*that the bond was not made to the plaintiffs by their Christian names. This objection also overruled, because the officer literally pursued the Statute m taking the bond, ánd the averment of the plaintiffs’ Christian names in the motion, is equivalent to' a Similar averment in a declaration in debt on such a bond.

Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Law of Richmond County, at Fall Term,-1842, his Honor Judge Dick- presiding.

A warrant from a justice of the peace had been issued against the defendant,- É. D. Jarrott, to answer the complaint of *“*Wall and Holton, in a plea of debt, &c.” Upon the trial before the magistrate,-judgment was given against the defendant, (Jarrott,) for the amount claimed. Upon this judgment a *ca. sa.*issued.- Neither the judgment nor *ca. sa.*mentioned the Christian names of the plaintiffs. The officer took a bond from Jarrott, under the provisions of the insolvent debtors’ act, for his'appearance at the County Court, «fee. which bond was payable to' « Wall and Holton.” The bond was signed by Jarrott and E. Love; the present defendants. From the judgment of the County Court in this case, the defendants appealed to the Superior Court. The cause coming on in the Superior Court, the following judgment was entered: “ The warrant, the judgment therein, the writ of *capias ad satisfaciendum,*and the *ca. sa.*bond taken *43pursuant thereto, being produced and proved with the transcript of the record from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions filed in this case, the plaintiffs, Stephen Wall and John B. Holton, partners in trade, trading under the name and style of Wall and Holton, moved to have proclamation made, and the defendant, Edward Jarrott, called preparatory to the trial of the issue made in this cause, which motion being granted and proclamation made at the door of the Court house, and the said Edward D. Jarrott being solemnly called three times, to make his personal appearance and having failed to appear, and proclamation having been made, and Erasmus Love, the other defendant, being called and required to produce the body of the said Edward D. Jarrott, and the said Edward not appearing, the plaintiffs moved to have judgment rendered for the penalty of the said bond against the said Jarrott and the said Love, to be discharged on payment of the said debt and costs. Whereupon, it is considered by the court, that the said Stephen Wall and John B. Hol-ton, trading under the firm and style, of Wall and Holton, recover of the said defendants, Edward D. Jarrott and Erasmus Love, the sum of $100 76 cents, the penalty of the said bond, and that the said plaintiffs have judgment for the said sum, to be discharged on the payment of $50 38 cents, principal money, with interest thereon from the 10th Feb. 1841, being the sum of $ for debt and int. and the sum of $ for costs.” A rule was granted to shew cause why this judgment should not be set aside. The rule was discharged, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Strange*for the plaintiff.

No counsel for the defendant.

Daniel, J.

The Christian names of the two plaintiffs had not been inserted, either in the warrant, judgment or *capias,*which had been obtained against Jarrott. The *first*question raised, is, whether the constable had authority to arrest Jarrott under the *ca. sa.,*so as to enable him, the said constable, to take this bond of the defendants, under the insolvent act. Upon this question, we think no reasonable *44doubt can be entertained. Jarrott might have availed him-by a plea in abatement, or *by*exception in the nature of a plea in abatement, of this defect in the warrant. But all imperfections of this sort were cured, after the judgment, by our Statute of Amendments — Revised Statutes, ch. 3d. The judgment was a valid one, the writ of *ca. sa.*pursued the judgment, the officer was bound to execute the writ, and, on executing the wrjt, it became his duty to take the bond.

*Secondly*; when the motion was made for judgment by the plaintiffs, Stephen Wall and John B. Holton, it was resisted, because the bond was not made to them by their Christian names. The Statute (Rev. Stat. c. 58, sec. 7,) directs the constable to take the bond, “ payable to the party at whose instance the arrest was madethe names of the plaintiffs in the *ca. sa.*were “ Wall and Holton:” he therefore literally pompl'ied with the Statute. The averment of the Christian names in the declaration, if an action of debt had been brought on the bond, would have .entitled the .plaintiffs to offer in evidence the bond, in its present form, to maintain the declaration; parol evidence, in support of the averment, would neither have varied nor contradicted the bond. We think, that as the motion made jn this case, contained the averment of the plaintiffs’ Christian and sur-names, together with the name of the mercantile firm, expressed in the *ca. sa.*and bond, that there was not such a variance between the motion on record, and the bond taken by the constable, as to preclude the court from giving judgment as prayed. The judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.