
    Nashville.
    July Term, 1812.
    BROOKS v. M’KEAN.
    a > Appeal.
    No objection to the reading of a deposition in the court below will be noticed by the Supreme Court, except such as is mentioned in the bill of exceptions.
    A deposition signed John G. Priestly, taken upon a notice and commission to take the deposition of John Priestly, may be read in evidence; even where the deposition related to the execution of the bond sued on, which was attested by the witness by the name of-John Priestly, and the execution of which was denied by the defendant by plea of non est fac-tum.
    
    Beooks brought an action of debt against M’Kean, upon a bond for three hundred dollars, to which M’Kean pleaded non est factum and a set-off. Yerdict and judgment upon both issues for the defendant.
    Brooks applied to the Court and got leave to take the deposition of John Priestly. A commission was issued to take the deposition of John Priestly, and the notice was to take the deposition of John Priestly. The deposition in thé body calls the witness John G. Priestly, and the name of John G. Priestly is signed to it.
    At the trial of the cause this deposition was offered in evidence, but was objected to for the variance above specified in the name of the witness. The bond upon which suit was brought was attested by John Priestly, and by referring to the deposition it appeared that the person who there signed his name John G. Priestly stated he was the subscribing witness to the bond.
    The Circuit Court refused to permit the deposition to be read; to reverse which opinion Brooks prosecuted this appeal.
    The case was argued in this Court by Coolee, for the appellant; and by Hayes, for the appellee.
   By the Court.

It must be taken for granted that when the deposition was offered as evidence every objection to the reading of it was waived, except the one mentioned in the bill of exceptions. The objection which was made was to a single point, and upon that point alone the Circuit Court pronounced the opinion which is set forth by the bill of exceptions. The only question, therefore, which this Court have to decide is,' whether, upon that ground the deposition was properly rejected ? We have no hesitation in saying that the Circuit Court erred in sustaining the objection to the reading of' the deposition.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted.  