
    THE PEOPLE v. JOHN ROONEY et als.
    
    Judgment against Sureties on Official Bonds.—A judgment in an action against the sureties on an official bond, for a defalcation of the principal, should first fix the amount of the defalcation, and then proceed with a separate judgment against each of the sureties for the full amount for which he made himself liable in the bond, and costs, and then close with a proviso, that each judgment shall be satisfied by the collection or payment of the amount of the defalcation, and costs.
    Appeal from the District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, Mariposa County.
    
      Rooney was, on the 2d day of September, 1863, elected Treasurer of Mariposa County, and the other defendants, nine in number, signed his official bond as sureties, each obligating himself in a different sum. This action was brought on the bond against Rooney and his sureties, to recover the amount of his defalcation. The penal sum of the bond was twenty-five thousand dollars. The judgment of the Court below recited the amount of the defalcation to be one thousand two hundred and thirty-six dollars and thirty-six cents, and then recited the penal sum of the bond, and the amount for which each surety had bound himself, and then a separate judgment was rendered against each surety who had signed for a greater amount than the defalcation, for the full amount of the defalcation and costs, and against each surety who had signed for a less amount than the defalcation, for the amount for which he signed and costs.
    The defendants appealed.
    
      Alexander Deering, for Appellants.
    
      Campbell & Burckhalter, for Respondent.
   By the Court, Sanderson, J.

In actions like the present the judgment should first fix the amount of the defalcation or recovery and thereafter proceed with a separate judgment against each of the sureties for the full amount for which he has made himself liable in the bond and costs, and then close with a proviso to.the effect that each shall be satisfied by the collection or payment of the amount of the defalcation or recovery and costs. An example is found in the case of The People v. Love et al., 25 Cal. 520. The judgment in this case is not therefore in the proper form and must be modified so as to meet the views here indicated.

Ordered accordingly.

Mr. Justice Sawyer expressed no opinion.  