
    JANUARY TERM, 1844.
    William Mattheny vs. J. S. Totten.
    A forthcoming bond,- and the execution thereon, unless embodied in the bill of exceptions, are not a part of the record, eren though they appear in the transcript thereof.
    In error, from the Copiah circuit court.
    
      W. Yerger, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. G. Thompson, for defendant in error.
    By the bill of exceptions filed in the record, it appears that at the May term, 1841, Mattheny moved the court “ to set aside the bond of William Hudson, and others, given to Joseph S'.-Totten, for the purchase money of the property sold under the original execution,” setting out several grounds for the motion, “ but the court overruled the motion to set aside the bond, as also a motion ■ to quash the same, for the same reasons.” Neither the original execution, nor the bond, nor any other paper, relating to the subject of the motion, is set out in the bill of exceptions.
   Mr. Justice Thaohek,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is writ of error to Copiah county. The 'writ seems to have been sued out for'the purpose of reversing the judgment of the court below, in refusing, upon motions, to set aside, and quash a bond given for the purchase of property under the valuation law.

The bill of exceptions in the rec'ord, does not set out the bond in question, nor the execution, and therefore, gives us nothing by which-we can judge of the merits of the errors alleged.

It has been repeatedly decided by this court, and recently in 6 Howard, 580, Huston, et al. v. Hayter, Administrator, that this court will not consider a forthcoming bond, and the execution thereon, as a part of the record, although they appear in the transcript, unless they are recited in the bill of exceptions.

Upon a like ground, we see nothing in the record that calls upon us, in this case, to reverse the judgment below.

. Judgment affirmed.  