#### GEORGE W. LOGAN v. JOHN H. WILKINS.

Where a plaintiff in an attachment recovered judgment against the defendant therein, for the amount of his debt, and at the same term, a judgment was rendered on the replevy bond of the defendant, which was subsequently stricken out: Held^ that striking out the judgment on the replevy bond, did not disturb or vacate the first judgment against the defendant in the attachment

Attachment, tried before Watts, J., at the Fall Term, 1874, of Hendeeson Superior Court, having been removed thereto, upon affidavit, from the county of Rutherford.

The plaintiff on the 4th December, 1867, sued out of the Superior Court of Rutherford county, au attachment against the defendant, which was duly levied on both real and personal property. The suit was afterwards removed to Henderson Superior Court. The defendant at a subsequent term, appeared and gave a replevy bond, which being accepted by the Court, he was allowed to plead.

At Fall Term, 1870, of Henderson Superior Court, the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant for $2,809.65 with interest and costs; and at the same term, on motion, judgment was rendered on the replevy bond in favor of the plaintiff, for $5,000, to be discharged upon the payment of the said $2,809.65, &c. From this latter judgment, the sureties on the replevy bond, appealed to the Supreme Court. During the same term, however, the judgment on the bond being stricken out, the appeal was not prosecuted.

On the trial in the court below, it was insisted by the defendant, that the order of the court at Fall Term, 1870, striking out the judgment against the sureties on the replevy bond, had the effect of striking out the first judgment against the defendant in the attachment. His Honor was of opinion, that *50the order had no such effect. Erom this ruling, the defendant appealed.

Shipp (& Bailey, for defendant.

Smith <& Strong, Hargrove, J. H. Merrimon, and J. G. L. Harris, contra.

Reads, J.

We agree with his Honoi’ that the striking out the judgment against the defendants upon the replevy bond, did not have the effect to disturb the judgment which had been rendered against the principal debtor Wilkins, for the debt. And that being the only matter appealed from, the judgment must be affirmed.

There is no error.

Pee CuRiam, Judgment affirmed.