
    State Bank vs. Roddy.
    Whore one of several defendants pleads to tin action, and the plaintiff replies, and on motion of a co-defondant, the original writ of summons is quashed, and judgment “that he go hence,” there is no final judgment in favor of the defendant pleading, to -which a writ of error will lie.
    
      Writ of Error to JaeJoson Ci/rcmt Oowrt.
    S. H. Hemtsteax), for tbe plaintiff.
    Fowxee, for tbe defendant,
    moved to'dismiss tbe writ of error.
   Mr. Obief Justice ENGLisn

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court.

Tbe Bank of tbe State brought an action of debt, in tbe Jackson Circuit Court, against Roddy, Tayman and Fulcher, upon a writing obligatory. At tbe return term, tbe death" of Tayman was suggested, and a sovre facias ordered for tbe purpose of substituting bis administrator. Roddy filed a plea of tbe statute of limitations, and tbe cause was continued. At tbe next term, tbe plaintiff replied to tbe plea of Noddy, and moved to quash tbe scwe facias issued to bring in Tayman’s administrators, and tbat tbe cause proceed against tbe surviving defendants. On tbe motion of tbe defendant, Fulcher, tbe original writ of summons was quasbed for tbe want of a seal, and judgment tbat Fulcher go hence — to which tbe plaintiff excepted. It does not appear, in tbe transcript before us, tbat any disposition was made of tbe cause, or final judgment, as to tbe defendant Noddy.

Tbe plaintiff brought error against Noddy, suggesting, in tbe writ of error; tbe cleatb of Tayman and Fulcher.

Tbe motion of tbe defendant in error to dismiss tbe cause for want of a final judgment as to bim, in tbe court below, must be sustained.  