OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF WISCONSIN; FOR 1842 and 1843. [Reported by T. P. Burnett, Reporter for the Territory.] PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY. MADISON: PRINTED BY GEORGE HYER. 1844. REPORTS. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wisconsin at the July Term, A. D. 1842. [Reported by T. P. Burnett, Reporter for the Territory.] JAMES D. DOTY, impleaded with ALEXANDER J. IRWIN, Pff in Error. VS. MOSES M. STRONG, Def't in Error. Error to Dane County. A writ of error may be quashed, when it does not agree with the record of the case. All the persons against whom a judgment is given, must be named as plaintiffs in a writ of error to reverse the judgment, Although the proceeding of summons and severance is not familiar in American practice, the more easy and equally legitimate course, is to enter a rule against those who are named in the writ as plaintiffs and who have not appeared, either to appear and assign error, or suffer to be severed. Ar the November Term, 1841, of the Dane District Court, Strong obtained judgment, in an action of assumpsit, against Doty, Jones, and Irwin. To reverse the judgment, Doty alone, prosecuted this writ of error, and entered into a bond for a supersedeas in his own name, without joining his co-defendants in the original action. The defendant in error moved the court to quash the writ and dismiss the cause, because, "1st. The writ of error is prosecuted in the name of Doty alone, although the judgment which it is brought to reverse, is against the said Doty, Jones, and Irwin: and 2d. The bond for the supersedeas is informal and insufficient." In support of this motion, BURNETT and DUNN for the defendant in error, contended: That where a judgment is given against several, one only, cannot prosecute a writ of error to reverse it. If the writ is sued out, it must be in the names of all the defendants against whom the judgment was given. If each one was allowed his separate writ, |