Bazil Wood et al. v. Henky Forrest et al.

Bazil Wood et al. v. Henky Forrest et al. It is not necessary to the Validity óf a replevin bond, that the plaintiff in replevin should he hound in'the bond.. ■ Debt upon a replevin bond. The bond was in this form: “ Know all men, by these presents, that we, Richard M. Scott, trustee of Mrs. Elizabeth C. Watson, and Henry Forrest, James Watson, and J. G. Slye, of Washington county and District of Columbia, are held and firmly bound unto Bazil Wood and Henry B. Robertson,” &c. — but was éxeeuted by the last-named three obligors only, Mr. Scott not having signed or sealed it. The condition was in the usual form, but it stated, in its recital, that the writ of replevin, which was about to be sued out, was “ to be returnable to the said Circuit Court next to be held at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on the of next.” The defendants, after oyer, demurred generally, to the declaration. Mr. Randall, for the defendants, contended that the bond was void, because not taken according to the directions of the statute of 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, § 23, which, in ease of replevin for distress taken for rent, requires,the bond to be taken “from the plaintiff and two responsible persons as sureties.” So, a bail-bond, the condition of which is not conformable to the statute, is void. 5 Com. Dig. 646, 647. Mr. Jones, contra. That might perhaps have been a ground for a motion to quash the replevin, but the defendants cannot now take advantage of it. The blank, in the condition as to the day of the sitting of the Court, is immaterial, as it states it to be “ the said Circuit Court next to be held at the city of Washington,” the time for the holding of which is made certain by law. [MAJORITY — The Court] The Court took time, during the vacation, to consider the case, and, at.the next term, rendered judgment upon the demurrer, for the plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs executed a writ of inquiry, and the jury assessed their damages to the full amount of the-debts and costs for which the property had been taken in execution by the plaintiffs, who were constables.