
    The Justices of Currituck v. Dennis Dozier et al.
    
    A bond, made by a guardian and his sureties to A, B, and the rest of the justices, is not in pursuance of the act of 1762 ( He», c. 69, s. 7 ) and c.an be supported only at common law. If one of the obligors be a justice at its execution, it is void as to all.
    This was an action of debt upon a guardian bond. The bond was made payable to ff Willis Qtheriige, Jo-' ' 
      sepjh Ferebee and the other justices of Currituck county.” uP°n °-icr ^a(^’ an(l nnn esi factum pleaded, it was proved that Dozier, one of the obligors, was at the execu--t[ori ()f tlie bond a justice of the peace. The action was brought in the name of those justices who were in office at its commencement.
    
    
      Kinney and Bevereux, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Hogg, contra.
    
    
      
       The record in this case also was lost, and. the. reporter is therefore-unable to give a more particular statement of the facts.
    
   Ruffin, Judge.

The principal question in this case has been already decided in Justices of Cumberland, v. Armstrong et al. at this term. The act of If62 (Rev. c. 69. s. 7 ) directs a guardian bond to be made payable to the “justices present in court, the survivor or survivors of them, their executors or administrators”. Under the statute therefore, the bond is nothing more than a common law bond, payable to inviduals and their personal representatives, in trust for another. This being the case, this bond must be taken to have been given to the individuals who were justices, by the description of their office. Dozier, ^hen, was both obligor and obligee, and the bond is void. There has been an attempt to distinguish this case from that of the Justices v. Armstrong, by the circumstance that it is payable to “ Willis Etheridge, Joseph Ferebee, and the other justices of Currituck county This is said to exclude, by necessary implication, that justice who was obligor ; as if it had been expressed, the rest except Dozier.” That depends upon what the word “ rest” refers to. It is introduced in that part of the bond, in which the obligees are set forth, and was designed to describe them ; and it plainly refers to the obligees, Etheridge and Ferebee, who are expressly named, and was designed to include, and does include as obligees all that class of persons, of which those two form parts. This is the plain and obvious grammatical construction of the words ; and we cannot imply an intention of the parties, or insert an exception against those words. Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed. 
      
       The case of the Justices of Martin v. Stewart, was in every respect' similar to the above, and the same opinion-was filgd in both.
     