
    SKINNER, &c. vs. ROBINSON.
    
      April 13th.
    
    A re levy bond given by one de-ten iem with ;e-curity, on an execution a-gainfi; is erroneous;
    The pldíi.iiíF’s iuing ou: executions on fuch replevy bond,& thereby making part of the money, does not preclude hirri from afterwards having fuch. bond quaihed Qa his motion.
    ROBINSON obtained a judgment in the Bairdstown district court against Moses Moore and Skinner ; a ca, sa. issued thereon, which being levied on Moore’s body, he gave up property, and in September, 1800, replevied it by giving Jo.hn Moore security.
    Sundry executions issued on the replevy- bond ; under one of which the plaintiff purchased a negro sold by the sheriff to satisfy, in part, said judgment.
    In October, 1803, on the motion of the plaintiff, it was “ ordered that the said replevin bond be quashed, because the said bond was not signed by the said Skinner, who was one of the defendants named in the execution.”
    Skinner filed a bill of exceptions to this decision, and/ prosecuted his writ of error.
    
      On q.uihing bond th* court ought not t0 vacate the Ríes or property made und=r flc-’editions timed on fuch replevy bond.
    The assignment of errors questioned the right to quash the replevy bond, upon the motion of the plaintiff, especially after his repeated admissions of its validity by suing: executions thereon, and after such a length of time . ° • . i i it i i. ^ *r • subsequent to its execution ; and also alleged that it it was proper to quash it, the sales made under the executions which issued thereon, should have been vacated, , , . ,. and the plaintiff subjected to the costs occasioned by these executions.
   The Court,

after argument, were of opinion there was no error in the decision of the inferior court, and affirmed the judgment and proceedings. 
      
      
         See the csfe of Edwards vs. GreenwellfPoJiy in which It was decided that one of ieyeral defendants might replevy.
     