
    
      Ex parte Fulton.
    ALBANY,
    Oct. 1827.
    An appeal va^d¿ name of the surety be not mentioned in the body.
    One executing a bond is bound by it, though he be not named in the body of it.
    Fulton obtained judgment before a justice of Steuben eounty, against Zimmurman, who appealed to the Steuben O. P. By mistake, the appeal bond did not contain the name of the surety in the body of "the bond, any where; but he signed and Sealed; and the bond was perfect in every other respect.
    Fulton made a motion in the G. P. to quash the appeal ' on that ground; which was denied.
    A motion was now made for a mandamus commanding • the court below to quash the appeal.
   *Ouria.

The only question is, whether this bond be

valid and binding on the surety without his being named .in it. We think it is. It is enough in any contract, that the intent of the party clearly appear, though it be not expressed fully and particularly. A full intent to be bound by the terms of this bond, is plain from the act of executing it. This view of the case is not only reasonable, but is supported by the authorities. (Dobson v. Keys, Cro. Jac. 261; Smith v. Crooker, 5 Id. 538, 540.) Both cases cited are in point.

Motion denied. 
      
       See N. Y. Dig. vol. 1, tit. Appeal.
      
     