
    The Justices of Pasquotank on the relation of Benjamin and Reuben Davis, v. Thomas Shannonhouse & William Wilson.
    w , , >From Pasquotank.
    
      A guardian bond executed by an acting Justice of the Peace “ to A. B. and the rest of the Justices,” &c. is ''ugatory.
    Such bonds should be made as pre-criiied by the act of 1762, (chap. 69, sec. 7,) to the Justices present in Court, granting the guardianship.
    Debt upon a bond given by one Muse, as guardian to the relators, to which the Defendants were sureties, payable to “John Mullen and Ambrose Knox, and the rest of the Justices of Pasquotank.” The writ was “ to answer John Mullen and Ambrose Knox, and the rest of the Justices assigned to keep the peace, &c.”
    
      Dec. 1828.
    Upon the trial on, non est factum, it turned out that the Defendants were two of the acting Justices of Pas-quotank, at the. date of the bond&emdash;whereupon his honor Judge StraNGE, holding that the same person could not be both Plaintiff and Defendant, directed a nonsuit, from which the relators appealed.
    No Counsel for the relators appeared in this case,
    
      Kinney, for the Defendants, insisted,
    1st. -That the Justices of Pasquotank were not a corporation, for which he cited Co. Lit. 183, Thomas L(l. Si8. Justices of Caswell v. Buchanan, (2 Murph. 40).
    2d. That the Justices not being a corporation, of necessity it resulted, that the same person was both f lain-tiff and Defendant, in other words, that the Defendants were bound to themselves, and of course were not responsible at law; for this was cited Manwairing v. Newman, (2 B. & P. 120.) Moffat v, Mulligan, (Do. 124 note.) Perring v. Hone, (13 tí erg, & Low, 328.)
   Hall, Judge.

The bond in this case should have been taken to the Justices present in Court, and granting such guardianships, as is prescribed by the act of 1762, ch. 69. But being taken to “ Mullen and Knox, and the rest of the Justices, &c.” arid the Defendants being two of them, the bond is nugatory, and of no effect as to them.

Per Curiam. Let the judgment below be affirmed.  