Case Name: MATLACK, WILSON and SPARKS against STOW
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1809-05
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 532
Docket Number: 
Parties: [*] MATLACK, WILSON and SPARKS against STOW.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
[*] 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¡. _

Opinion:
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.