
    Whitlock v. Ramsey’s Administratrix.
    Thursday, November 28th, 1811.
    Bonds — Action on — Variance between Declaration and Bond, — If a bond be payable to James Whitlow, jun. and the declaration describe it as payable to the plaintiff, after naming him as ‘‘James Whitlow, jun. alias .James Whitlock;” this is not such a variance as should prevent it from being received as evidence, in support of the declaration, on the plea of payment.
    This was an action of debt on a bilí penal, in the county court of Campbell. The declaration was in behalf of “James Whitlow, jun. alias James Whitlock,” and stated the obligation as executed to the said plaintiff, without specifying whether it was to the plaintiff by the name of James Whitlow, jun. or by the name of James Whitlock. The bond produced was to James Whitlow, jun. In other respects it.corresponded exactly with the description given in the declaration. At the trial, which took place on the plea of “payment,” the defendant objected to the admission of the bond as evidence; it being, as he contended, different from that described in the declaration; but the court overruled the objection ; to which opinion a bill of exceptions was filed. Verdict and judgment was entered for the plaintiff, but afterwards reversed by the district court holden at Franklin court-house, on the ground of a supposed variance between the declaration and bond.
    
      
       See monographic note on “Bonds” appended to Ward v. Churn, 18 Gratt. 801.
    
   The plaintiff appealed to this court: and, after argument by the counsel for the appellant, (the appellee being *calleql and not appearing,) the president, on Friday, November 29th, pronounced the court’s opinion, that the judgment of the district court be reversed, and that of the county court affirmed.  