
    Nathaniel J. Sparks v. Jorden Hopsen.
    Replevin. Surety on defendant's bond. Code 1892, 3716, 3729.
    A surety on a defendant’s bond in replevin, under Code 1892, § 3729, authorizing' an execution against him for costs in case his principal he cast in the suit, is liable therefor under a judgment for the plaintiff, though the bond he conditioned as in the form prescribed by Code 1892, § 3716, and be silent as to costs.
    From tbe circuit court of, first district, Coahoma county.
    HoN. Samuel 0. Cook, Judge.
    Hopsen, appellee, was plaintiff in tbe court below in a replev-in suit brought against one Parker, wbo gave bond for tbe retention of tbe property, witb appellant Sparks as surety on bis bond. Judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor against defendant Parker and the surety on bis replevin bond, appellant Sparks for tbe return of tbe property, valued at $50, and tbe payment of all costs. The replevin bond was conditioned, as per form provided Code 1892, § 3716, “to have tbe property (describing it) before tbe court (describing it and tbe time of its bolding) to satisfy tbe judgment of said court” in tbe case. An execution, after tbe surrender of tbe property, having been issued against defendant and appellant Sparks, tbe surety on tbe bond, for costs, Sparks moved tbe court to quash tbe execution as to him, which motion tbe court below overruled and Sparks, tbe surety, appealed to tbe supreme court.
    
      Edward Mayes and J. B. Harris, for appellant.
    Tbe replevin bond given in this case is identical witb tbe form given in Code of 1892 for bonds in similar cases, and tbe only question which this court has to decide is this: “Has the surety complied with the conditions of his bond by delivering the property as required ?”
    The condition of the replevin bond was that the defendant should have the property in dispute before the court to satisfy the judgment in the action of replevin, “only this and nothing more.”
    All the authorities hold that the sureties may stand on the precise terms of their contract, and the court will not add terms not made by the parties. 1 Brandt on Suretyship; Sec. 93, Tarpy v. Bhillenberger, 10 Oal., 390; Glary v. Bollard> 24 Cal., 147; Chambers v. Waters, 7 Oal., 390; Pfershing v. Peterson, 98 HI. App., 70; Bhrejfler v. Nadelhojfer, 133 Ill., 551; Mitcham v. Blanton, 49 Oal., 304.
    [Counsel did not appear for appellee.]
   OalhooN, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Sparks was surety on the replevin bond for $100, given by the defendants in a replevin suit, in a court of a justice of the peace, for a horse. Defendants won in that court, which adjudged that they retain the horse. The bond is conditioned, as in the form set out in Code, § 3716, to be void if the horse should be produced before the court to satisfy its judgment, but is silent as to costs. But the plaintiff appealed, with superse-deas, to the circuit court, and won there, and the judgment was that the horse be restored to him, and that defendant and Sparks, his surety on the replevin bond, pay $214.75, the costs; Sparks, however, to.be exonerated on payment of $100, the penalty of his bond, the horse having been delivered to plaintiff.

It is urged here by Sparks that he is bound only, by the letter of his bond, to have the horse forthcoming, which was done, and that it was error to hold him for any costs at all. In Phillips v. Cooper, 59 Miss., 18, this court construed sections 1530 and 1535 of the Code of 1871, in a case where the property had not been produced, and held the surety liable for costs; and, further, said he would also be liable if the property had been restored, because section 1535 of that code gave the “successful party” a distringas for the property and “a fieri facias’ for damages and costs.” Now the requirement of the condition of the bond of defendant, by § 1530 of the Code of 1871, is identical with that of § 3715 of the Code of 1892, that the property “shall be forthcoming to satisfy the judgment of the court.” Section 3729 of the Code of 1892, compared with § 1535 of the Code of 1871, is substantially the same, both allowing recovery against the losing party and his sureties for restoration of the property and for “damages and costs.” The fact that the form of the bond for defendant, set out in § 3716, Code 1892, does not mention costs, cannot alter the reasoning or the conclusion in Phillips v. Cooper, supra. The learned codifiers of this code cite this case as applicable in their footnote to§ 3715.

Affirmed.  