
    COURT OF APPEALS, (E. S.) JUNE TERM, 1820.
    Morgan vs. Blackiston.
    íeSíya?or 3ti,e oSS™judBmra£ «“[Numere®the was8™ated to have been at April term iaoi, when it was in fact at SejJtemfor term isoi, it ivas held that the bond was not n*.
    Appeal from Kent county court. It was an action debt on a bond dated the' 13th of April 1802. Judgment was given by the court below for the defendant, on a case stated. The facts agreed upon were, that Morgan,. the plaintiff, at the April term 1801, of the late General tíourt, obtained a judgment on a bond against one Samuel Davis, _ -, , _ , , i. for penalty and costs, to be released on payment of r J . _ $2200, with interest from the 24th of November 1796, 7 • 7 till paid, and costs. Payments were to be allowed, and there was a stay of execution until the 1st of January 1802. That Davis, together with the present defendant, and ano-, ther person, as his securities, afterwards executed the bond on which the present action was brought. This bond was in these words:
    “Know all men by these presents, that we, Samuel Davis, John Comegys and Lewis Blachiston, all of Kent county, in the State of Maryland, are held and firmly bound unto Benjamin R. Morgan, of Philadelphiá county, State of Pennsylvania, in the sum of sixteen hundred and fifty pounds, current money, to be paid to the said Benjamin R. Morgan, or his certain attorney, executors, administrators or assigns; to which payment well and truly to be made and done, we bind ourselves, and each of us, our and each of our heirs, executors and administrators, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, and dated this 13th of April 1802. Whereas the above bound Samuel Davis is about to obtain an injunction out of the High Court of Chancery of the State of Maryland, to stay proceedings at law on a judgment rendered against him in the General Court for the Eastern Shore of Maryland, at September term 1801, at the suit of said Benjamin R. Morgan, for the sum of eight hundred and twenty five pounds, current money, debt, and costs of suit. Now the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the said Samuel Davis shall prosecute the said writ of injunction with effect, and satisfy and pay, as well the said debt of eight hundred and twenty-five pounds, as also all costs, damages and charges, that shall accrue in the chancery court, or be occasioned by the stay of execution on the said judgment, unless the court of chancery shall decree to the contrary, and shall in all things obey such order and decree as the chancery court shall make in the premises; then the above to be void, else to remain in full force, &c.
    
      Samuel Davis, (Seal.)
    
      John.Comegys, (Seal.)
    
      Lewis Blacldston, (Seal.)
    Attested, John D. Heath.”
    
    It was also admitted, that Davis, on the 10th of April 1802, filed a bill in chancery against Morgan, and obtained an injunction the same day to stay proceedings on the judgment recited in the bond. That Morgan appeared to and answered the bill; and a motion to dissolve the injunction was heard by the chancellor at February term of that court 1803, and overruled, and the injunction continued. No further proceedings were had in the court of chancery until July term 1809, when it was entered abated, by the chancellor, in consequence of the death of Davis, which happened about the 15th of May preceding. It 'was also admitted, that letters of administration were taken out on Davis’s estate by one Isaac Spencer, on the 21st of August 1809, and that no bill of revivor in said chancery cause had ever been filed by the administrator, or by any other person, or any other proceedings had in the same, Judgment being, as before stated, for the defendant, the plaintiff prosecuted the present appeal,
    The case was argued in this court at the present term, before Buchanan, Johnson, Martin and Dorsey, J. by
    
      Tilghman, for the appellant, and
    
      Carmichael, for the appellee.
    
      
      
         He cited I Bac. Ah. tit. Condition, 682. 2 Com. Dig. 450, and 1 P. Wms, 743.
    
   The court

was of opinion, that the bond, on which the action was brought, could not be made to embrace any ether judgment than the one it recited; and as the judgment admitted by the case stated to have been obtained by the appellant against Davis, was rendered at April term 1801, of the general court, and the ene recited in the bond is of September term 1801, they thought the judgment below ought to be affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  