Lockart v. Roberts

*361OPINION of the Court,;

by/Ch. J. %0yle.

— This was a joint action, brought by the appellee against Tho-mift Arthur and tjie appellant upon an injunqtion bond, *362jn •which Arthur, who obtained the injunction, and th« appellant, were jointly bound. The original writ was executed upon the appellant, and as to Arthur the she-rjff returned that ‘^he was not found in his bailiwick.” Against Arthur no farther steps appear to have been taken. The appellapt appeared and pleaded “ that the P^a'nt!^ his “action against him to have and maintain ought not, because he says when he signed and affixed his name…