
    Richardson v. Craig.
    
      At Chambers,
    Jan. 3, 1853.
    The undertaking to warrant an order of arrest must in all cases "be executed "by the plaintiff, except where the plaintiff is a feme covert, or an infant.
    Duer J., refused to grant an order for the arrest of the defendant, upon the ground that the undertaking on the part of the plaintiff was executed only by a surety, and not by the plaintiff. He held that although, in the discretion of the judge, sureties may he dispensed with, yet the undertaking must in all cases be signed by the plaintiff, and that the terms of § 182 of the Code admitted no other interpretation; and although the plaintiff was proved to be a non-resident, he could not for that reason allow an exception. When the plaintiff is a married woman, or an infant, he inclined to the opinion that the next friend, or guardian, might be reasonably considered a plaintiff, within the meaning of the Code, and an undertaking signed by him, upon that ground, be held sufficient. It was only by this construction that these exceptions could be reconciled with the language of the Code, which he thought was too plain and imperative to allow of any other.
    
      F. W. Platt, for plaintiff.
   Oakley, Ch. J:, and Campbell and Boswokth, J. J., concurred.  