
    Raymond against Lent and Lent.
    NEW YORK,
    October, 1817.
    The defendant and A. a constable, executed an instrument in writing, bv which they agreed to pay such sum of mo. ney as A. should become liable to pay on account of executions delivered to him» The instrument seL^s/c®^! ¿épt\haMt’waa partS® AbVav-SI to®i¡S"piSni «on, placean his hands, ab-scowled, ami the defendants, supP'fins selves responsible to the piaiutitf, gave him their promissory notes for part of his olaim against A.; held, that the defect in the original security was no defence in an action on the notes ? that having signed the instrument, the defendants must be presumed to have known that it was not under seal, and with a knowledge of the fart, they cannot allege their ignorance of the law ; and that having given the notes voluntarily, they must be presumed to have waived all objections to the form of the; security.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit on two promissory notes, executed by the defendants to the plaintiff, both dated the 16th of March, 1816, one for 45 dollars and 89 cents, and the other for 29 dollars and 37 cents.
    One Briggs, on the 1st Tuesday of April, 1815, was duly elected constable of the town of Cortlandt, in the county of Westchester, who, with the defendants, by a certain instrument in writing, jointly and severally, agreed to pay to each and every person, such sum of money as Briggs should become liable to pay for, or on account of, any executions which should be delivered to him for collection. This instrument was signed by Briggs and the defendants, but was not sealed as required by the act. (Sess. 36. c. 35. s. 1. 2N.R.L. 126.) The approbation ' 1 r of the supervisor to the security was endorsed. Several execuA J tions were, afterwards, placed in the hands of Briggs, amount-7 a 7 *■ oo 7 ing to 126 dollars, in favour of the plaintiff, for the whole of which Briggs became liable, having collected part of them, an<j suffering the others to run out, without doing any thing thereon. In February or March, 1816, Briggs absconded, and the plaintiff having demanded a settlement with the defendants, they, supposing themselves liable, by virtue of the instrument which they had signed, for all the money which Briggs had become liable to pay, came to a settlement with the plaintiff, in pursuance of which they gave the notes in question, and were released as to the residue.
    The case was submitted to the court, without argument,
   Per Curiam.

This action is founded upon two promissory notes, drawn by the defendants, and made payable to the plaintiffs. The objection set up by the defendants, to exonerate themselves from payment, is, that the instrument by which they became security for Briggs, the constable, was not under seal. In ¡every other respect, the requisites of the act have been complied, with for the purpose of making the defendants responsible as security for the constable. Whether the defendants would have been liable, had they been prosecuted directly upon the instrument signed by them as security, is not the question here,' They, having signed this instrument, must be presumed to have known that it was not under seal, and being acquainted with the fact, their ignorance of the law cannot be alleged by them ; and, having "voluntarily given the notes in question, under these circumstances, they must be presumed to have waived all objections to the form of the security, and - they come too late, now, to set it up, The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled tq judgment,

Judgment for the plaintiff,  