
    CUNNINGHAM v. CLARKSON.
    Bail — liability of a security for the prmcipal~?>privity.
    ' The bail for A. and B. sued, cannot look to one who was jointly liable with A. and B. for the debt on account of which lie went bail — there is no privity between such persons.
    Debt, for money paid, laid out and expended. Plea nil debet. The plaintiff to support his action offered a Kentucky record in evidence, from which it appeared, that A. brought a joint suit against four persons including the defendant. The process was served on the other three, and judgment and execution was had against them. A levy was made on goods which were replevied and a replevy bond given, with the present plaintiff as security, and that the defendant had been made liable to execution on the replevin bond. This was stated to be the whole evidence for the plaintiff. x
    
      E. King, for the defendant,
    objected to the evidence, and cited 3 Ohio R. 41.
    
      Storer and Fox, contra,
    insisted that this was an equitable action, and as the defendant was one of those originally liable for the debt, the payment by the defendant was for his advantage, and therefore he is liable as for money, paid by him. They cited 8 T. R. 308.
   By the Court.

The claim of the plaintiff is as bail, for A. B. and C. who were jointly liable for a sum of money to a stranger. There is no privity between the plaintiff and this defendant. Bail may resort to his principal for indemnity; but not to another person, merely because that other person was liable for the same original debt, and might be liable over to the principal of the bail, if he were compelled to pay. The case in 8 T. R. 308 is not analogous — that in the 3 O. R. 42, seems exactly in point, and against the plaintiff’s claim. The testimony is inadmissible.

The plaintiff then submitted tb a non suit.  