#### The Governor, for the use of Gill, *v.*Stribling and Others.

A capias ad íespondendum was issued against *Taylor*& *Searles*requiring bail. Upon this writ the sheriff arrested *David 8. Taylor,*but took no bail and permitted him to escape. *Field,*that the sheiiff committed no breach of duty in this discharge of *Taylor,*although the person intended bythenameof *Taylor*in the writ was ' *David S. Taylor.*

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court.—’This was an action of debt brought in the name of the governor, for the use of *Gill,*founded on a sherifi’s bond, in which action *Stribling,*the *25sheriff, and his sureties were defendants. Issue was joined upon the performance of the condition of the bond. Yerdictand judgment for the defendants.

*24*Friday, November*10.

*25*JVelson,*for the plaintiff.

Blackford, J.

The facts stated in the declaration, to make out a breach of the condition, are, that *Gill*took out and delivered to *Stribling,*as sheriff, a capias ad respondendum against *Taylor & Searles,*requiring bail; that he intended by *Taylor*& *Searles, David*S. *Taylor*and *David Searles;*that the sheriff arrested *David S. Taylor,*but did not take bail, and voluntarily permitted him to escape.

These facts constitute no breach of the condition of thebond. Upon a writ against *Taylor,*without any other description, the sheriff was not bound to arrest *David S. Taylor,*nor, after arresting him, was he bound to detain him. It was impossible for the sheriff, from such an imperfect description, to know that *David S, Taylor*was intended.

The record, therefore, shows that the plaintiff had no cause of action; and he has no right to complain of the judgment against him (1).

*Per*Curiam.—The

judgment is affirmed with costs.

(1)

 The party whom the plaintiff intended to arrest must be correctly described in the process; if he bo not, the processes no justification for the arrest of such person. Thus, to trespass for false imprisonment brought by *Jl.*the defendant pleaded that B. sued out a latitat against the plaintiff «/?., therein called by the name of C., directed to the sheriff, &c. authorising him to arrest C.; that the sheriff directed his warrant to the defendant, commanding him to take the said *Jl. therein called by the name of*C.; averment, that *Jl.*and *C.*named in the writ and warrant are *one and the same person.*This plea,on general demurrer, was held tobe bad. *Shadgett v.*Clipson, 8 East, 328. So, to trespass for taking *JlSs*goods, the officer pleaded that he took them under a distringas against *B.*meaning the said'./#., to compel an appearance; averring tha¿ *Jl.*and *B.*were the same person. *(Jl.*had not appeared in the original action.) *''I2eld¿*on demurrer, that the plea was bad. *Cole*v. Hindson, 6 T. R. 234. So, where *Daniel S. Griswold*was arrested on process of attachment issued out of the equity side of the Circuit Court of the *United States*against *Samuel S.*Griswold, it was held that an action of false imprisonment lay by *Daniel S. Griswold*against the marshal, his deputy, and the solicitor concerned in the arrest; and that this was so, though *Daniel S. Griswold*was the peison intended. *Griswold*v. Sedgwick, 6 Cowen, 456. S. C. 1 Wend. 126.