
    FOSTER vs. BLOUNT.
    
      Certiorari, upon a caveat in the county court.
    Harris, who had obtained a rule to dismiss, argued in support of the rule upon two grounds:
    1st. William P. Anderson obtained the certiorari as agent for the defendant, when his agency does not appear. In the petition he states himself as agent and locater of the land.
    2d. The bond for prosecuting the suit was not taken agreeably to the act of 1807, c. 81.
    An agent obtaining certiorari for his principal, need not shew his authority. An attorney may pray an appeal, & one security, if sufficient, may be received.
   Per Curiam.

Humphreys, j. and Overton, j. tacite Powel, j.

In cases of this kind, it never has been the practice of our courts to require the agent to produce a power of attorney, or authority, for the purpose of obtaining redress by resort to this court. The court always presumes the agency as it is stated. And per Overton, j. Upon his first being acquainted with the practice, it was thought by many, that no person could appeal from the decision of an inferior court, without being present, or giving a regular letter of attorney for that purpose ; that doctrine had long since been exploded, and attorney's at law sometimes enter into bond themselves, or procured others to do it in the absence of their clients. About the same time it was urged, that the act of assembly respecting the number of securities, to wit, two. must be literally complied with. As in North-Carolina, our courts have decided one was sufficient, if satisfactorily responsible.

Rule discharged. 
      
      See 9 Vez. jr. 250. 2 Johns 579.
     
      
       Vide 1 Esp. Rep. 61.
      
     