
    GENERAL COURT, (E. S.)
    APRIL TERM, 1803.
    Parrott vs. Gibson.
    Tn inaction by the assignee of a bond, under the act of 1763, ch. 23, against the assigner, it is not necessary to prove the execution of the bond.
    But there must be proof that the assignee used due diligence to recover the money from the obit* gor in the bond, and that the assignment was signed and sealed by the assignor.
    Debt upon a writing obligatory, which the defen-t!ailí “ad assigned to the plaintiff, under the act of 1762> cL 23> and «pon which the plaintiff, without neglect or delay, brought suit against the obligor, who was committed on a surrender by his bail. JYil Debet pleaded, and issue joined.
    
      Earle and J. Bayly, for the defendant,
    contended, that the bond, until its execution was proved, could not be offered in evidence to prove the assignment, and that nil debet was the only plea that left the defendant at liberty to make the objection. That the suit was collateral to the bond, which was but inducement where the assignee sues in his own name.
    
      Carmichael and Houston, for the plaintiff,
    contended, tha" if the bond was only inducement it was still less necessary to prove it.
   Chase, Ch. J.

The court are of opinion, that it is not necessary to prove the execution of the bond. The assignee takes the assignment on the credit of the assignor, and having paid a consideration has a right to resort to the obiigec, having used due diligence to recover the money from the obligor. Tine assignment must be proved, and that the plaintiff has used due diligence to get the money from the obligor.

The witness to the assignment was then produced. Who proved his own subscription, and that of the defendant in his presence. But he could not prove that tiie defendant aflixed his seal to it.

Chase, Ch. J. To support a suit under the act of assembly against the assignor of a bond, there must be proof that the assignment was sealed by the assignor.

VeRDTCT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  