HOYE v. PENN. 11

this can affect the right of the complainants; unless some fraudu-
lent delay or collusion was proved to the injury of Penn.

The bond to Edward Gwinn was dated the 21st of September
1788, but was not payable until the 21st of September 1792. And
although it seems to be admitted, that Pigman was the principal,
and the other obligors the sureties; yet they all appear as princi-
pals in the condition of the bond.

Suits were not brought on the bond until April 1795; but such
forbearance is not unusual, and does not affect the right of the
obligee. And the sureties, if they thought proper to pay off the
bond, might have had it assigned to them, and have brought suit
against the principal. The judgments, against Pigman and against
Charles Penn, were obtained at October term, 1796, with a stay
of execution till the 1st of January 1797. The judgment
against Pigman was removed in February 1797, as appears
by the record, although the writ of error bond is left blank as to
the dates; and admitting, that this bond was executed by Deakins
and Stoddart to oblige Pigman, there is nothing suspicious in the
transaction; and it appears also, that a similar bond was executed,
about the same time, by Charles Penn, with the same sureties.
Edward Gwinn died before November 1798, at which time his
administratrix had appeared, and the judgment was affirmed.
There is nothing to shew, that she was disposed to favour Pig-
man; and it is presumed, that she would have recovered the
money from him or Charles Penn, by execution, if in her power.
But suits were brought against the executor of Deakins and against
Stoddart on the appeal bonds, and judgments obtained thereon at
May and October term 1801, against them as sureties for Penn, as
well as for Pigman. The money was paid by them on the 1st of
May 1802, and the judgment against Pigman only was assigned to
them. This was the commencement of their claim against Charles
Penn or his heir or representatives, and they filed the present bill
in July 1802. It appears by the testimony of Benjamin Ray, that
executions were issued against Pigman, and Penn, which were both
served, so that there was no neglect on the part of Gwinn to pus-
sue Ms legal remedy, supposing, that he was obliged so to do,
which was not the case. If Pigman had been possessed of visi-
ble property, a resort to it would have been preferable to a suit on
lie writ of error bond. And as to Penn it is to be observed, that
tiie conveyanee of his lands in 1792, prevented their being
on the judgment, and affirmance in 1796 and 1798, by which