
    Owen Williams et al. v. John C. Ehringhaus et al.
    
    Bonds intended to be official, but which are not in conformity to the statute, may be declared on as voluntary bonds at common law.
    The case of the Governor v. Mellan, (2 I,aw hep. 460.) and tire Go-. ventor v. Witherspoon, (3 Hawks 42,) approved..
    After the new trial granted in this case, ( ante 2 vot. 511) the cause was tried again on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Martin, at Pasquotank. The. only question made in the case was, whether the County Court had a right to take the following bond : “ Whenr- “ ever the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions for the “ county of &c. shall require, we the undersigned, joint- “ ly and severally, promise to pay to the justices of said ‘4 court or their order, the sum of Ac. In witness where-44 of we have &c.”
    The suit was brought in the names of the survivors of those justices, who were in office when the bond was executed.
    
      . , , A bono, payable to the justices of a court has the same validity, as if it de-geesby name^1"
    His Honor being of opinion for the plaintiffs, a verdict was taken accordingly, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Iredell, for the plaintiff.
    
      Kinney, for the defendants.
   Ruffin, Judge.

It was not expected, after the frequent decisions that bonds intended to be official, which had not that character because of some want of conformity to the statute, were not void, but would be supported as good voluntary bonds at common law, that any question would be again made upon it. The Governor v. Meilan, (2 Law Rep. 460) was the first case upon the subject. The Governor v. Witherspoon, (3 Hawks 42) and many others have followed it. And in the Justices of Cumberland v. Armstrong, it is plainly declared to be the opinion of the court, that a bond payable to the justices of a particular county is not void; for the obli-gees arc sufficiently identified by that description. It follows, that the present bond is valid.

It is said however, that the County Court has no capacity to take such an obligation. Admit it: and what is the consequence ? This bond is not taken to be given 1 ° to the justices, as constituting a court, but given to them ns individuals by the description of their office, instead of their names. That is the ground of all the decisions 0,1 the subject down to that of Branch v. Elliott, (ante 86), Unless, therefore, it is void at common law for uncertainty, it must be supported j and that it is not void for that reason has been settled in those cases. The bond directed by a statute must be taken according to it, to be proceeded on under the statute. But to take such a bond as the present, there is no necessity for a special authority. The distinction is between taking a bond without such an authority, and taking it when forbidden ; as in the case of bail bonds.

Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.  