
    P. F. Glentworth vs. Hutchinson.
    If the condition of the appeal bond recites so much of the judgment as to identify it with the judgment appealed from, it is not necessary that it should recite also the style of the action.
    This was an application for a mandamus, to be directed to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Hunterdon, to compel them to reinstate an appeal; and came before this court, upon a state of the case agreed upon by the .attorneys of the parties; which was as follows : “ Hutchin.son had obtained a judgment against Glentworth, in an action-of trespass on the case, before a justice of the peace;. Prom,this judgment Glentworth appealed; upon the calling: of the appeal, the attorney of the appellee objected to the-appeal bond, that it did not set out the style of the action* appealed from. The bond was in the usual form except that the style of action was'not named.” The preamble-*91] *to the condition of the bond was as follows : “Whereas the above bounden P. P. Glentworth, intends to appeal to the Inferior Court of Common Pleas of the county of Hunterdon, at the next term thereof, from the judgment obtained in the court for the trial of small causes, before David Johnston, esquire, one of the justices of the peace in and for said county, by the said Hutchinson, against the said P. P. Glentworth, for the sum of sixteen dollars damages, and two dollars and sixty cents costs of suit, in a plea of' How the condition, &c.”
    The Court of Common Pleas sustained the objection to the-appeal bond, and dismissed the appeal.
    
      W. Halsted,
    
    on behalf of the appellant, and in support of the application for a mandamus, contended that the appeal bond was sufficient; that it conformed, in all respects, to the-requisitions of the act respecting appeals. Rev. Laws, 640, see. 36. The act no where required that the style of action should be set out in the bond. It was sufficient, if the condition of the bond so far recited the judgment as to enable-the adverse party to identify the judgment intended to be-appealed from.
    
      Hamilton, contra.
   By the Court.

We think the bond is sufficient. It is-sufficient to identify the case from which he meant to appeal.. The names of the parties, and the amount of the judgment, are 'correctly recited. These are sufficient to identify the judgment, and the style of the action is not necessary to'be-stated.

Mandamus allowed..  