The question raised in this case is too well settled to be considered open to debate.
In the case of Russell v. Saunders, 3 Jones 432, Pearson, Judge, says : “We consider the point made in this case settled by McDowell v. Bradley, 8 Ired. Rep. 92. In that case •the Court says, that although the proper bond was not taken at the proper time, yet the Court has thepower to supply the omission, as was done, with respect to certiorari bonds in the case of Fox v. Steel, 1 Cal. Law Rep., 370. There is no reason (says the Court) why prosecution bonds, appeal bonds, and certiorari bonds, should not be put upon the same footing, such has been the uniform practice and understanding of the •profession.” So in this case as in the case of Russell v. Saunders the Court thinks that the offer to give a good bond, when ¡the objection was taken at the second term after the answer Iliad been filed, was a full answer to the plaintiff’s motion. But In this case the Court is further of opinion, that the Court below did not err in accepting the bond tendered; as it was signed by two solvent sureties, who had justified, and that it was not necessary that any one of the defendants should sign 'the bonds, as they were liable for the plaintiffs’ costs, in tlie event of his recovery, without signing the bond. Cohoon v. Martin, 4 Jones 256.
There is no error. This will be certified.
^jeb Curiam. Judgment affirmed.