
    The State against Gilson Foot, John Kennedy, and Joseph Whann.
    CogiS?eapó?tends to be a seal-tog¡v«
    This was a scire facias on a recognizance for J ■the appearance of Gilson Foot, one, of the defendants, which had been forfeited by his non-ab tendance. The cause shown why judgment should not be given against the defendants, was, that the recognizance was without seal. It purported to be a sealed instrument, and wras signed by the defendants, but not sealed. Judgment was given for the defendants, and a motion is now made to reverse the decision of the District Court, on the ground that the recognizance wai good and valid, under the act of Assembly of this state concerning recognizances, passed in 1787. (2 Brev. 182.)
   The opinion of the Co.urt was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cheves.

This case was brought before me at the last Court for Chester District, at the moment the Court was about to adjourn. The counsel for the defendants contended that a seal was essential to the validity of a recognizance, and the solicitor did not controvert this position, except under the act of Assembly of 1787. I was of opinion that, if before the act, a seal was necessary, it was not dispensed with by the act, and I am of the same opinion still: but I am also of opinion, no seal was necessary before the act, to give validity to this recognizance, and that, there-1 f°re5 ^Ie judgment of the District Court should be set aside.

Bay, JYott, Colcoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.  