
    Doss and others v. The State.
    In a qui tam action the judgment should be rendered in favor of the informer for the uses expressed in the statute, and it is error to render judgment in favor of the State.
    Error from Houston. This was a proceeding commenced before a justice of the peace oil the information of Harrison against Learned in 1843 for a violation of the secoud section of the act of the 16th Jauuary, 1843. (Hart. Dig., art. 3083.)
    The justice of the peace rendered a judgment against Learned for twenty-live dollars and costs. The judgment was in these words, after stating tlie proof and the charge: “It is therefore adjudged that judgment be entered against defendant for twenty-five dollars damages and all lawful costs.” An appeal was asked; no bond, however, having been given within the time, prescribed by law, an execution was issued. The case was then taken to the District Court by a certiorari, the defendant Learned giving bond, and with the plaintiffs in error as his securities. In this bond Harrison was the obligee, and it described tlie character in which lie sued as follows: “Firmly bound to William II. Harrison, who sues as well for himself as the county of Houston and the Ilepublic of Texas.” It was continued from term to term until the Spring Term of tlie court, 1847, when the following judgment was entered: “Injunction’dissolved and canse dismissed at the cost of John II. Learned: Whereupon it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by tlie court that tlie Governor of tlie State of Texas do recover of John II. Learned the sum of twenty-five dollars and all costs in this behalf expended, and that execution issue.”
    At the Spring Term, 1848, a motion was made on behalf of the officers of the court for a judgment against the securities of Learned, representing that execution had been issued bn the judgment of the court of the preceding term against him, which had been returned “no property found,” on which motion the following judgment was rendered : “It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the State of Texas do recover of the said securities, Riley B. Wallace, John E. Doss, and Samuel A. Burton, the sum of twenty-five dollars and all costs in this behalf expended, and that execution issue.”
    
      Yoalcum and Taylor, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Attorney General, for defendant in error.
   Lipscomb, J.

It is alleged by the plaintiff in error that the court below erred in the rendition of tlie judgment against them and in the judgment on which it is founded. From the conclusion we have arrived at it is unnecessary to notice the act of the Republic under which tlie proceedings were commenced in the Justice's Court further than that tlie penalty imposed by it inured the one-half to the Republic, one-fourth to the informer, and one-fourth to tlie comity.

The record shows the proceedings to have been a qui tam suit, and the judgment should liave been in favor of llarrison and not the Governor of the Stale. The judgment against the securities on the bond was still more objectionable. In the bond Harrison was the obligee; it was to him the securities became bound and not to the Republic. No valid judgment could have been rendered upon that bond on its breach but in favor of Harrison. The judgment, if any, should have been in favor of Harrison for the uses expressed in the statute.

There are other errors of minor importance .not necessary to be noticed.

Judgment reversed.  