
    *OCTOBER TERM, 1800.
    Glassel v. Delima.
    Forthcoming Bond — Obligors — Joint Notice. — On a joint notice to all the obligors in a forthcoming bond, the plaintiff may take judgment against one of the defendants.
    Glassel gave a forthcoming bond, with James Somerville and David Blair securities, to Delima. -Upon this forthcoming bond, Delima gave notice to Glassel, Blair and the executors of Somerville jointly, that he should move the District Court for judgment.
    He took judgment, however, against Glassel only. The defendant filed a bill of exceptions, reciting the notice and execution, with the sheriffs return, in haec verba; and stating, that the defendants excepted to the same as improper, but that the District Court overruled the exception.
    Glassel appealed to this Court.
    Wickham for the appellant.
    The question is, was the notice sufficient for the Court to give judgment against the appellant only? A notice should be at least as particular as a declaration; and upon a joint declaration the plaintiff could not cease to prosecute the suit against some of the defendants, and take judgment against the rest. This is a fault which the statute of Jeoffails *would not cure, and much less will that statute cure the error on a motion ; to which the statute does not apply.
    Warden for the appellee.
    Was stopped by the Court; who held clearly that the notice . was sufficient to warrant the judgment.
    
      
      Forthcoming Bond — Obligors—Action against Intermediate Number. — In. Booth v. Kinsey, 8 Gratt. 565, the court said: ‘‘The rule that an action cannot be maintained against an intermediate number of joint and several obligors, does not apply to a motion on a forthcoming bond; the statute authorizing execution thereon to be awarded ‘against the obligor, or obligors, or any of them.’ And this it seem s may be done even where the notice is against all of them. Glassel v. Delima, 2 Gall 368.” See Wilson v. Stevenson, 2 Call 213, and monographic note on ‘‘Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. Strother. 21 Gratt. 107.
    
   Judgment Affirmed.  