Case Name: LAMBORN vs. BOWEN, SCOTT, BLANCHARD and THOMPSON
Court: Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1819-08
Citations: 1 Tapp. Rep. 342
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAMBORN vs. BOWEN, SCOTT, BLANCHARD and THOMPSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the Courts of common pleas, in the Fifth circuit of the state of Ohio [1816-1819] (Tappan)
Volume: 1
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
LAMBORN vs. BOWEN, SCOTT, BLANCHARD and THOMPSON.
DEBT, ON A BOND CONDITIONED FOR BOWEN’S REMAINING WITHIN THE PRISON BOUNDS, FOR HIS ESCAPE.
In debt, on a bond given under the provisions of the “act regulatingprisonbounds,” it is not necessary to aver, in the declaration, that the sureties were approved of by two judges of the court of Common Pleas or two justices of the peace.
Nil debit is a good plea to such action.
This was an action of debt, for an escape of the deft Bowen, from the prison bounds, brought against him and his sureties, on a bond given by them, and conditioned that the said Bowen should remain and continue in the custody of the jailor of said county, within the limits laid off and assigned to said prison, until legally discharged. The defendants pleaded nil debit, and the plaintiff demurred generally to the plea.
Blocksom for the plaintiff,
cited 1st Chitty, 478.
Goodenow, Laird and Wright, for defendants,
cited 1 Chitty 476, and insisted that the declaration was materially defective, in not stating that the securities in the bond were approved oi by two judges of the Court of Common Pleas or two justices of the Peace.

Opinion:
President.
A prisoner is not entitled to be discharged from close custody, until he has given a bond, with two or more sureties, such as two judges or two justices shall approve of. If the Sheriff liberates a prisoner, without the sureties being so approved of, he would be liable for an escape; whether such approval should be endorsed on the bond, or be evidenced by some other and separate writing, or by parol, it is clearly no part of the bond, and therefore it is unnecessary, in declaring on the bond, to aver it. In debt on a specialty, this distinction is laid down by Chitty; where the deed is the foundation of the action and matter of fact only inducement, nil debit is an improper plea; but where the deed is only inducement and matter of fact, the foundation of it, nil debit, is a proper plea. This case is of the latter description. The escape is the foundation of the action. In the cases of Minton vs. Woodworth and Ferris, 11 Johns. 474, the same question arose and received the same decision. Judgment for the defendants on the demurrer.