
    Miller v. Blannerhassett.
    Decided Friday Nov. 1st. 1816.
    i. Supersedeas Bond — Execution by Surety AIonet — Ei-feci. — ABond forprosecuting a Writof Supersedes being- executed by a Surety only, without any principal obligor, is insufficient; and a Superse-deas issued thereupon ought to be quashed.
    See Bootes v. Holliday et al., 4 Munf. 323.
    
      
       Appeals — Dismissal as Improvidentiy Allowed— Costs. — Ttjokbu., P, in a dissenting opinion, in Ayres v. Lewellin, 3 Leigh 617, cited the principal case in support of the proposition that, wherever an appeal is dismissed as improvidentiy allowed, or a supersedeas quashed as improvidentiy awarded, the court will refuse to give costs to the party prevailing'.
      For further information on this subject, see
    
   In this case, Miller obtained a Judgment against Blannerhassett in the County Court of Wood. A writ of Supersedeas to that Judgment was awarded by the Superior Court of law, whereupon the Bond for prosecuting the Supersedeas was executed *by a Surety, but not by Blannerhas-sett, or any other principal obligor in his place. The Superior Court having reversed the Judgment, Miller appealed to this Court, where, after argument, it was decided that the Judgment of the Superior Court was erroneous, because that Court had no cognizance of the case, the Super-sedeas having been improvidently issued; since the Bond was not signed by Blanner-hassett, or any responsible person for him.

Judgment reversed, and the Writ of Su-persedeas, issued by the Superior Court of law, directed to be quashed.  