
    Chanie vs. Bull.
    It is not necessary, that the condition of a bond to prosecute a suit with effect, or pay all costs, &c., should state the nature of the action which has been commenced. It is sufficient to state the names of the parties, and the court in which the suit is brought.
    .This was a scire facias upon a bond for the prosecution of suit in the circuit court of Grainger county, which bond is in these words:
    “Know all men by these presents, that we, Vincent G. Bull and Elisha Bull are jointly and severally held and ■firmly bound unto William Chanie, in the penal sum of two hunderd and fifty dollars. To be void on condition that the said Vincent G. Bull, doth with effect prosecute a suit, by him this day commenced, against the said William Chanie, in the circuit court of Grainger county; otherwise, to pay and satisfy all cost that may be awarded for failure. Witness our hand and seals, the 9th day of September, A. D. 1835.
    Vincent G. Bull [Seal.]
    
      By attorney, J. Cocke.
    
    Elisha Bull [Seal.]
    
      By attorney, J. Cocke.
    
    The scire facias recites the commencement, prosecution, and end' of the suit. That judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in the action for the sum of two hundred and forty dollars eighteen and three-fourth cents, cost of suit, for which execution issued, and return was made by the sheriff, no property to be found in his county; whereupon Elisha Bull is called upon to show c?iuse, if any he can, why the said William Chanie, judgment against him should not have for costs' aforesaid, and costs of the sciere facias.
    
    The defendant, Bull, appeared to the scire facias, and after craving oyer of the bond, filed a general demurrer.
    The circuit court gave judgment for the defendant, sustaining the demurrer.
    
      R. JW Kinney, for complainant.
    
      J. Jl. JWKinnney, and Jarnigan, for defendant.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.-

This is not like the case of Eason and Clark. 2 Yerg. Rep. 522. There the bond was defective, in not stating against whom the suit was commenced. Here it is , shown against whom the suit is brought, and is certain, to a general intent. It is true, that in the case of Eason and Clark, the judge, delivering the opinion of the court, supposed, that it is necessary to specify in the bond the kind of action brought. But we know the fact to be, that in almost every case, the bond, when taken, is attached to the writ, and can apply to no other suit, and the reasoning of the judge is inconclusive, because that many suits might he brought, as he supposes, against the same person, by the same plaintiff; yet the plea might be the same (as, for instance, nil debet) to the whole of them.

The point in the case of Eason and Clark, that the bond was defective in not showing against whom the suit was brought, there being no obligee, was properly adjudged, and so far we do not question the opinion.

That point does not arise in this case. We deem this bond good and effectual to maintain the scire facias, and therefore reverse the judgment.

Proceeding to give such judgment as' the circuit court -ought to have rendered, overrule the demurrer, and render judgment for the plaintiff in the sciere facias.

Judgment accordingly.  