
    Blane v. Sansum.
    [October Term, 1800.]
    Debt — Declaration Blank as to Sums — Effect.—If a declaration in debt be blank as to tbe sums, tbe date of tbe obligation, tbe assignment thereof to tbe plaintiff, and as to tbe damages, a judgment rendered thereupon is erroneous; and ought to be reversed, and tbe suit dismissed with tbe costs of both courts.
    Blane, as assignee of' Young, brought suit in the County Court against Sansum. The writ is in debt, for one hundred and seven pounds, four pence sterling. Damage ten pounds sterling. The declaration is also in debt; but is blank as to the sum declared for; as to the date of the bond; as to the assignment to the plaintiff; and as to the damage. The defendant having failed to appear upon the return of the writ, the proper proceedings were had, and an office judgment regularly obtained. The bond (which is in the penalty of ¿215. sterling, conditioned for payment of ¿107. 0. 4%. sterling) is copied into the record by the clerk.
    The District Court granted a writ of supersedeas to the judgment, and reversed it with costs; without entering a nil capiat per billam. Whereupon Blane appealed to this Court.
    Wickham for the appellant.
    As the sum is right in the writ, it is sufficient under the act of Jeofails which says that the judgment shall . not be arrested, after verdict, in any such case. Besides the bond is part of the proceedings, and certainly contains the. true sum.
    *Randolf contra.
    There was no verdict in this case, but a mere office judgment. No oyer was taken of the bond; which therefore is no part of the proceedings. Consequently the defects are not cured by the statute of Jeofails.. Reference to the writ will not do; for that does not say that the action is founded on a bond.
    Cur. adv. vult.
    
      
      Appeliate Practice — Reversal of Judgment. — in Janey v. Blake, 8 Leigh 92, itissaid: “Tbe judgment, it is true, is erroneous, not only in retaining the cause, and in omitting to enter such j udgment as tbe county court should have entered, which it ought to have done upon reversing tbe judgment; Darby v. Henderson, etc., 3 Munf. 116; Mantz v. Hendley, 2 Hen. & Munf. 308; Blane v. Sansum, 2 Call 496; 1 Rev. Code, cb. 69, § 60, p. 240, but it is also erroneous in reversing tbe judgment of tbe county court.” See monographic note on “Appeals.”
    
   PENDEETON, President.

There is no error in the judgment of the District Court as far as they went; but they should have gone further, and reversed the judgment of the County Court, and dismissed the suit with the costs of both Courts: Which is to be the judgment of this Court.  