
    Brown vs. McLaughlin.
    No judgment by motion can be rendered on a bond for an appeal which docs not state in favor of whom the judgment was rendered*
    McLaughlin recovered three judgments before Urban Harris, a justice of the peace for Humphreys county, against Holmes. Holmes appealed to the circuit court, and gave bonds for the appeal with James Brown as a surety: these bonds are as follows: — “We bind ourselves to James McLaughlin in the sum of, two hundred and fifty dollars to be paid if .James M. Holmes, who has this day taken an appeal from a judgment of Urban Harris, a justice of the peace, for the sum of one hundred and ten dollars against him to the next term of the circuit court for Humphreys county, shall prosecute said appeal with effect or in case of failure shall comply with the judgment of the court,” &c. In the circuit court a joint judgment was rendered by a jury under the direction of Judge Martin, for the plaintiff against the defendants Holmes and Brown.
    
      The case was brought to the supreme court by Brown, by writ of error.
    
      Allen and Pavatt, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      John Marshall, for defendant in error.
   Turley J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

There was judgment rendered in the circuit court of Hum-phreys, in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff in error, as security for an appeal in three cases, from a justice of the peace, which is sought to be reversed, because (the appeal bon'ds, are so defective, as not to have warranted such judgment on them.

We think, the bonds are fatally defective as appeal bonds, upon which no judgments could be rendered, on motion.

The defect in the bonds, is, that it does not appear from them that the judgments appealed from were . rendered in favor of James McLaughlin, the defendant in error; he therefore had no right to a judgment against the security Brown.

The judgment of the circuit court, will thérefore be reversed and arrested.  