
    Dix v. Evans.
    Friday, Nov. 20th, 1812.
    i. Forthcoming Bond — Reversal of Judgment on — Defects in Sheriff’s Return. — The sheriff’s failing- to mention, in his return of an execution, one of the negroes on whom it was levied, is no ground for reversing a judgment on aforfeited forthcoming bond, in which that negro is mentioned as one of those on whom such execution was levied. See Jones and others v. Hull, 1 H. & M. 212.
    
    Capias ad Satisfaciendum — Receiving Property in Discharge of Body. — it seems, that where a capias ad satisfaciendum is executed at any time before the return-day thereof, the sheriff may receive property tendered by the debtor, in discharge of his body out of custody, and appoint a day of sale posterior to the return day; and that a bond for the forthcoming of such property is good in law, though dated after such return-day.
    Upon a writ of supersedeas to a judgment by default on a forthcoming bond, which was taken for the delivery, at the time and place of sale, of certain slaves and other property, tendered by the defendant to the sheriff, in discharge *of his body, on a writ of capias ad satis-faciendum,  The errors assigned were, 1st. That a material variance existed between the property described in the condition of the bond, and that mentioned in the sheriff’s return of the execution; and, 2dly. That the bond was illegally taken, the date thereof being posterior to the return-day of the execution. The ca. sa. and return were spread on the record; (as in Glascock’s administratrix v. Dawson, 1 Munf. 609;) from whicn, when compared with the bond, it appeared that a negro man, by the name of Joe, mentioned in the condition of the bond as one of the slaves tendered by the defendant, and received by the sheriff, was omitted in the sheriff’s return ; that the ca. sa. (being returnable the 1st of January, 1809) was executed December 29th, 1808; that the property, in discharge of the defendant’s body, was tendered and received ‘‘at the time of levying the said writ;” that the time appointed for the sale was March 31st, 1809; and that the forthcoming bond was dated March 4th, 1809.
    Wickham, for the plaintiff in error.
    No counsel appeared on the other side.
    
      
      See Jones v. Hull, 1 Hen. & M. 212. and foot-note; Harwood v. Creel, 8 W. Va. 581, 582, citing tbe principal case.
    
    
      
      Note. Eckhols v. Graham. 1 Call, 492, may seem, on a superficial view, to be in conilicl with this decision; but the point decided there was, only, “that the names of the slaves ought to have been endorsed, in order to prevent purchasers from being deceived;” that is, that such was the duty of the sheriff, for failing to comply with which, he was liable to a penalty; see Rev. Code, vol. 1, p. 290, sect. 18, and p. 525, sect. 9:) but not that, In the event of the sheriff’s neglecting to perform this duty, a sale of the slaves, lawfully made by Mm in other respects, or a bond taken for their forth coming at the time and place of sale, would be void. — Note in Original Edition.
    
    
      
       See Rev. Code, vol. 1, p. 301.
    
   February 2d, 1813, the Court affirmed the judgment.  