
    Municipal Court on the City of Providence vs. James E. Corcoran et als.
    
    A declaration in debt on a bond set forth the writing obligatory in the following “words • and figures; ” then followed a copy of the bond without its signature and seals. After verdict for the plaintiff the defendants moved in arrest of judgment:
    
      Held, that the court would, after verdict, assume the bond to be the writing obligatory of the defendants.
    Debt. On motion in arrest of judgment.
    This action was debt on a guardian’s bond. The parts of tbe declaration referred to by the court are: “ For that the said defendants, at said Providence, to wit, on the thirteenth day of May, A. D. eighteen hundred and seventy-three, by their writing obligatory of that date, sealed with their seals, and in the words and figures following: ‘ Know all men by these presents, that we, James E. Corcoran, of the City and County of Providence and State of Rhode Island, as principal, and Patrick Denahy and Michael McHale, both of said Providence, as sureties, are holden, and stand firmly bound and obliged unto the Municipal Court of the City of Providence, in the County of Providence, in the full sum of thirty-five hundred dollars to be paid to the said court; to the true payment whereof we bind ourselves, our respective heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals this thirteenth day of May, in the year of' our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three: ’ bound and acknowledged themselves to be indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of thirty-five hundred dollars.
    “ And the said plaintiff avers,” &c., —follow the condition of the bond, but without giving a copy of the signatures, or seals, — “ and the said plaintiff avers,” &c., — follow the allegations of breaches.
    
      February, 12, 1878.
   Per Curiam.

The defendants move in arrest of j udgment because the writing set forth in the declaration as the writing obligatory of the defendants does not, as set forth, appear to have .been signed and sealed by them. We do not think the motion can be sustained. The declaration purports to give only “ words and figures,” not signatures and seals, unless signatures and seals are words or figures. A seal is obviously neither a word nor a figure. A signature is not necessarily either a word or a figure; it may be the mark or the initials of the signer. We think, therefore, the declaration, even if we must construe it with literal exactness, does not show that the writing declared on is not what the verdict finds it to be, the writing obligatory of the defendants. The motion must be overruled and judgment entered for the plaintiff.

S. S. Lapham cf Stephen JSssex, for plaintiff.

Sayles Greene, for defendants.

Motion dismissed.  