134 JENNINGS AND BAKER VS. ASHLEY. [5 JENNINGS AND BAKER VS. ASHLEY. THIS was a proceeding on delivery bond, determined in the Pulaski Circuit Court, in November, 1842, before the Hon JOHN J. CLENDEN-IN, ork: of the circuit •judges. The facts .of the case were precisely the same, in all respects,. as iri the case last preceding, except that there was otic more defendant. The case was argued by the same counsel. By the Court, PASCHAL, J. The facts of the case are precisely as-in the case of Jennings vs. Ashley and Beebe, and the same principles upon the merits, are involved. The decision of the Court in that case was made upon the facts as argued by counsel; and owing to the peculiar manner in which the record was transcribed, the Court overlooked the fact that the declaration was not filed at the term to which the execution was returnable, and the delivery bond forfeited. Upon a nearer examination of dates, we find that the declaration was not, in fact, filed until the fol-
135 lowing term. Consequently, when the voluntary appearance of the defendants was entered, there was no suit to appear to—no declaration, process, or other thing, to which to ,hold the defendants. Such ' appearance did not bind them to answer the declaration filed at a subsequent term. Edwin-Y. Baker was, therefore, never properly before the Court; nor, indeed, either of the other defendants, except so fai as they reSisted the motion for 'judgment, and filed a bill of excep-. tions. ThiS they were not bound to do; and, had they remained silent, the plaintiff mnst have sued mit his summons, and proceeded in the • ordinary form of an action at law. Edwin Y. Baker never was before the ()mut. ConsequentlY, the nunc pro tunc'judgment 'as to him is the more apparently erroneous. Judgmert reversed and Jennings and W. R. Baker considered -as in Court.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.