Croom and Others v. . Mousley , 63 N.C. 591 ( 1869 )

Pearson, C. J.

We are of opinion that the act of the Clerk in signing the blank writ and handing it to the Attorney, was sufficient authority for him to fill the blanks; and that after the blanks were thus filled, it became a regular and and sufficient writ, like endorsing a note in blank, or signing a promissory note in blank, with authority to insert the true amount.

But at all events, as this paper was returned to the Clerk and received by Mm and regularly docketed by him as the writ or leading process in the case, by these acts he recognized and adopted the writ as regularly issued, and is concluded from the defence that it was done by one not authorized by him. Wright v. Wheeler, 8 Ire. 184.

The only question then is — did the Clerk take a sufficient prosecution bond before issuing the writ ?

Qui facit per alium, facit per se. Had the bond taken by the Attorney been returned at the same time with the writ, we presume no question ever would have been made about it: so the real objection is that ¡the bond was not filed with the writ. But as the bond was filed in time for the purposes of the defendant, we are of opinion that the delay did not vacate the bond, or have the legal effect to prevent the acts done from amounting to a compliance with the requirement's of the law.'

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.