
    N. Numlin, Adm’r of Jane Scott, who sues for the use of R. Workman, v. Samuel Westlake.
    
      Error.
    
    Where a suit is.brought in the name of a plaintiff for the use of a third person named, it is not necessary to show an assignment of the subject of the action to such third person.
    This cause came before Judges Pease aud Burnet, at the April Term, 1825, in the county of Gallia.
    It appeared, from the record, that a certiorari had issued from the common pleas of Gallia to John Kerr, a justice of the peace, who returned the same with a transcript annexed, from which it appeared that a summons issued in the name of Jane Scott for the use of Workman, against Samuel Westlake, which was returned served. That defendant appeared and confessed judgment for twenty-one dollars and cost. That sundry executions had been issued by the justice, on which no property was found. That the proceedings before the justice had been stayed by an injunction which was afterward dissolved. That’the justice then issued a summons on the injunction bond, in the name of Sc.ott, for the use of Workman, against the defendants, Samuel Westlake and his securities. That the defendants appeared, made no defense, and that judgment was entered by the justice for the penalty, of the bond, to be released on the payment of twenty-eight dollars and forty-seven cents.
    After the return of this transcript diminution was suggested, and a further return obtained, setting out the original note, on which the suit was brought. It did not appear from the note that it had been assigned to Workman. Pending the certiorari, Jane Scott died, and N, Numlin, administrator, was made party. The following reasons were assigned on the certiorari:
    
    1. “ The suit was brought in the name of Jane Scott, and the judgment was rendered in the name of Jane Scott, for the use of Workman.”
    *2. “ It does not appear that Workman had any interest in the note on which suit was brought, as there was no assignment or order by Jane Seott to Workman for the payment of the same to him.”
    3. “ The judgment does not agree with the writ.”
    On these reasons the court of common pleas set aside the judgment of the justice, and rendered judgment against the defendant in certiorari for cost, to reverse which this writ of error was taken.
    The error relied on is, that the court of common pleas set aside the judgment of the justice, and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff in certiorari.
    
   By the Court :

The assignment in this case renders it necessary to examine the reasons filed in the court below.

The first and third reasons are not true in point of fact. The. transcript shows that the original summons issued in the name of Jane Seott, for the use of Workman, and that there is no disagree' ment between the writ and judgment.

The second reason does not seem to be very material. As the note was not assigned, the suit was properly brought in the name of the payee. The additional words, for the use of Workman, were intended to show that he had a right to receive the money when it should be collected. The want of an assignment, or an order on the back of the note, does not disprove that right. It might have been created by a separate instrument, or a parol agreement, the validity of which could only be questioned by the payee. It is a matter of no interest to the defendant to whom the money' belongs; it is enough for him to know, that the title to the note is in the plaintiff, in whose name the suit was brought, and that a second action can not be sustained against him for the same demand.

It is a common practice in the courts of this state to designate in this way the person for whose benefit a suit was brought, when it is necessary to commence it in the name of the original obligee or payee, and it has been considered a sufficient authority from the nominal plaintiff to justify the officer in paying the proceeds of the judgment *to the person designated, where no objection is made. It has been treated as an acknowledgment, by the plaintiff, that he was a trustee, suing for the use of another, and it appears unnecessary to inquire in what way the trust was created, as long as the trustee is disposed to acknowledge it, and the interest of third persons is not affected by it.

On these grounds we are of opinion that the court of common pleas erred in setting aside the judgment of the justice.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.  