
    Treasurers of the State, on behalf of Jehu Jones v. The Sureties of William Oswald.
    A recovery in assumpsit against the sheriff, for money had and received by him in his official capacity, is no bar to an action on his bond, against the sureties, for the same money.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Walterborough, Fall Term, 1830.
    This was an action of debt against the sureties of William Oswald, late sheriff of Colleton District, on his official bond: The breach alleged was the non-payment to Jehu Jones, of certain moneys collected for him under execution by the defendants’ principal. His Honor overruled a plea in bar, of a former judgment in assumpsit against Oswald, for the same money. And after verdict for plaintiff, the defendants moved to reverse his Honor’s decision as to the plea in bar, on the ground : That the recovery in assumpsit against the principal changed the nature of the debt, and the sureties were thereby discharged.
    Elmore and Edwards, for the motion.
    H. Grimke, contra.
    
   Johnson J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The legal proposition, arising out of the defendant’s plea, is, that they were discharged by the judgment obtained against their principal, Oswald. As applied to joint and several obligations, there can be no question, that a judgment against one of several obligors, without satisfaction, is no bar to a recovery against the others. Whatever may be the effect of the recovery against Oswald, as to his own liability, the liability of those defendants remains precisely as it was before. They were not parties to that suit, nor would they have been liable in that form of action: if liable at all, it is upon their bond, and in this, farm of action ; and their liability must be resolved by the rule before laid down, about which there is no difficulty.

Motion refused.  