
    Jackson and Reno, Executors of Farrow, v. Ewell.
    March 22d, 1815.
    «. Forthcoming Bond — How Judgment Obtained Thereon — Case at Bar. — A judgment cannot be obtained upon a forthcoming bond, bearing date before the 7th of January, 1807, against the sheriff to whom the estate of a deceased obligor has been committed, as against an executor or administrator in ordinary cases; — -but the plaintiff must exhibit his claim before the court, according to the act of 1792.
    See Kev. Code, 1st vol. ch. 92, sect. 61, p. 167,168.
    A motion was made by Farrow’s executors, September 7th, 1807, to Prince William County Court, against Charles Ewell, sheriff of that county, to whom the estate of Henry Dade Hooe, deceased, had been committed, for judgment and award of execution on a forthcoming bond, bearing date the 24th of July, 1806. The bond appeared to be *in regular form ; and, notice being proved, a judgment was rendered by default, “to be levied of the proper goods and chattels of the said Henry Dade Hooe, deceased, in the hands of the said Charles Ewell, to be administered, if so much thereof In his hands he hath ; if not, then the costs of the proper goods and chattels of the said Ewell, &c.”
    
    Upon a writ of supersedeas, this judgment was reversed by the superior court of law, on the 21st May, 1813, without proceeding to render such judgment as the county court ought to have rendered ; — to which judgment of reversal, a supersedeas was awarded by a judge of this court.
    Stanard, for the plaintiffs in error,
    relied upon the act, “directing the mode of proceeding against decedent’s estates, and providing a mode of reviving suits in certain cases,” passed the 7th of January, 1807, (Rev. Code, 2d vol. p. 120,) as authorizing the motion and judgment in this case.
    No counsel appeared for the defendant.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. Strother. 21 Gratt. 107.
    
    
      
       Note. The last member of this judgment seems altogether erroneous; even if this case were to be governed by the act of January 7th, 1807. See the last proviso in the 3d section of that act. —Note in Original Edition.
    
   March 28th, 1815,

JUDGE ROANE

pronounced the court’s opinion, that there was no error in the judgment of the superior court of law, so far as it reversed the judgment of the county court, but that the said superior court erred in not proceeding to render such judgment as the county court ought to have rendered.

Both judgments reversed (with costs to the defendant as being the party substantially prevailing,) and judgment entered, that the plaintiffs take nothing by their motion, &c.  