
    Tench Ringgold v. William Elliot.
    A judgment for the defendant in replevin, without a declaration, is irregular, and will, on motion, be set aside, even at a subsequent term.
    Dejbt on a replevin-bond, executed by the defendant as surety for Charles W. Patterson, in his replevin against the present plaintiff, Tench Ringgold.
    The judgment was rendered upon a verdict for the then defendant Ringgold, at October term, 1823.
    
      Mr. Redin, now, (April term, 1824,) moved the Court to set aside the judgmentin the case of. Patterson v. Ringgold. There had been a rule on the plaintiff to declare, but, without any declaration being filed, the parties went to trial at .the last term, and a verdict and jadgment rendered for the then defendant. .
    In the case of Ault v. Elliot, special bail for Peter Morté, at April term, 1823, this Court set aside the judgment against the principal, for irregularity, (there being no declaration,) although several terms had intervened. Such is also the practice in the English Courts. Barloiu v. Kaye, 4 T. R. 688.
    The surety in the replevy-bond cannot have a writ of error to the judgment in the replevin : and the sum is too small, if he could. . •
    
      Mr. Redin also produced affidavits as to merits, and misinformation, and surprise of the defendant as to the action of replevin.
   The Court,

on the 1st of June, 1824, ordered the judgment to be set aside, on payment of costs.  