In replevin, judgment was given for the defendant for return and restoration and for costs, taxed at $2.20. The plaintiff appealed, and in his appeal bond described the judgment as given "for the return and restoration of property, damages, and cost of suit (including appeal bond), taxed at $9.10." Held, that the error in the bond did not vitiate the appeal, that the judgment being otherwise identified, the erroneous parts of the bond could be rejected as surplusage.
PER CURIAM.
We are of opinion that the inaccuracies in the bond, being simply inaccuracies in the description of the judgment appealed from, which judgment is otherwise identified, are not fatal to the bond, the maxim Falsa demonstratio non nocet being applicable. Broom's Legal Maxims, 629, 644. The words in which the error occurs can be stricken out as surplusage and the bond will be good. Llewellyn v. Earl of Jersey, 11 M. W. 183, 189; Adler v. Potter, 57 Ala. 571, 573. See also Bennehan v. Webb, 6 Ired. 57; Gully v. Gully, 1 Hawks, 20.
The exceptions are sustained, and the case remitted to the Court of Common Pleas for trial.
Exceptions sustained.