
    Roosevelt and another against Soulden and Smith. The Same against Vansantvoord.
    In bailable process, the plaintiff cannot Sndantler¡h decia'reagatnst onfy.°f them
    WRITS of capias ad resp., containing clauses of aa etiam, . . . J . were issued, at the suit of the plamtms,in which the abovenamed defendants, and Jonathan Turck and Abraham Turck, were named defendants. The defendants, Soulden, Smith, and Vantsantvoord, put in special bail, and employed an attorney, who gave notice thereof to the plaintiffs’ attorney, who filed declarations against the defendants, Soulden and Smith, and the defendant Vansantvoord, separately, without naming the other defendants.
    A motion was now made to set aside the declarations and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity.
    
      Talcot, for the defendants.
    
      P. A. Jay, for the plaintiffs.
   Per Curiam.

Where the writ does not require special bail, several persons may be named as defendants, and the plaintiff may declare, and proceed against any one of them, separately. The Court so decided in Montgomery v. Hasbrouck, (3 Johns. Rep. 538.) Such, also, is the English practice, (1 Tidds Pr. 80. 4 Term Rep. 696, 697. note. 1 Bos. Pull, 50. 5 Bos. & Pull. 82. 5 Term Rep. 722.) But in this case, the writs contained clauses of ac etiam, and the defendants were held to bail. The declarations and subsequent proceedings must, therefore, be set aside, for irregularity, with costs. (Rogers v. Rogers, 4 Johns. Rep. 485.)

Motion granted.  