
    Colen E. Blake versus George H. Blanchard & al.
    
    An execution against two persons, in which the name of one is erroneously-stated, is not void as against the one who is correctly described.
    A bond, given by the one who is correctly described, to procure his release from arrest on such execution, is valid.
    On Exceptions to the ruling of Davis, J. '
    This was an action on a poor debtor’s bond, given by the__ defendants, to procure the release of George H. Blanchard from arrest on an execution against said Blanchard and Charles W. Coburn. It appeared that the judgment, on which the execution issued, was against Blanchard and Charles W. Cahoon, and that the name of Coburn was accidentally inserted in the execution by the clerk instead of that of Cahoon. The defendants contended, that the execution was void, the arrest illegal, and the bond given under duress.
    The presiding Judge ruled that, as against Blanchard, the execution was valid, and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. To this ruling the defendants excepted.
    
      Fessenden 8j Butler, for defendants.
    The execution issued against Blanchard and Coburn, purporting to be issued on a judgment against the same parties. The case shows there was no such judgment, and, therefore, the execution was improvidently issued and was void.
    If the execution is invalid, all the subsequent proceedings are void. Stearns 8/ al. v. Veasey 8¡ al., 33 N. H., 61.
    The defendants are not estopped by the bond from showing that there was no such judgment and execution as are recited in the bond. Stearns 8¡ al. v. Veasey 8/ al., above cited.
    
      Floward 8/ Strout, for plaintiff.
   The opinion of the Court was announced by

Davis, J.

The judgment, as against this defendant, was correctly described, as it was in fact. He was not injured by the mistake in the name of his co-defendant. There was no duress, and the bond is valid. Perhaps he would not be estopped by his bond from showing that there was no judgment against him, so that his arrest was unlawful. But he should be estopped from taking advantage of merely technical and clerical errors. If, when arrested, he had been brought before us on habeas corpus, instead of discharging him, we should have permitted the clerk to correct the execution. He can be in no better condition.. The mistake was not in his name. Exceptions overruled.

Tenney, C. J., Appleton, Cutting, Goodenow and Kent, JJ., concurred.  