350 ARTICLE 8

satisfied by said surety or sureties, the same shall be entered by the attor-
ney representing the State to the use of the surety or sureties satisfying
the same, on the said attorney filing in the case a certificate of the comp-
troller stating that said judgment has been so satisfied, and said surety or
sureties shall then be entitled to execution in his or their own name or
names against the principal and the other sureties, in the same manner and
subject to the same provisions contained in the two preceding sections.

This section applies only where a judgment has been rendered against the surety;
hence where the surety dies before judgment, his administrators are not entitled to an
assignment of the judgment recovered against a principal and co-sureties. Wilson v.
Ridgely, 46 Md. 246.

This section is to be construed in connection with secs. 6 and 7. McKnew v. Duvall,
45 Md. 507.

This section apparently grew out of the decision in Peacock v. Pembroke, 8 Md. 352.
See also McKnew v. Duvall, 45 Md. 508.

Cited but not construed in Orem v. Wrightson, 51 Md. 46.

This section is substantially the same as art. 10, sec. 40.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 9. 1912, sec. 9. 1904, sec. 9. 1888, sec. 9. 1763, ch. 23, sec. 9.

9. The assignee of any bond or other obligation under seal that has
been assigned under hand and seal may maintain an action in his own
name against the obligor therein named—and if such obligor shall be un-
able to pay the debt mentioned in the obligation, or cannot be found in the
place or county of his usual abode, or any other thing or casualty should
happen whereby the assignee should not be able to recover his debt from
the obligor, an action may be maintained by the assignee against the obligee
in such obligation, unless the assignee be a surety therein; provided, that
where any debt shall be lost by the negligence or default of the assignee,
the assignor shall not be liable.

To support an action under this section against the obligee, there must be proof
that the assignment was under seal and that the assignee used due diligence to re-
cover from the obligor; but the execution of the bond nee'd not be proven. Parrott v.
Gibson, 1 H. & J. 399.

If the assignment of an obligation under seal is not executed under the assignor's
hand and seal, the latter cannot be sued. Dickey v. Pocomoke Bank, 89 Md. 293;
Jackson v. Myers, 43 Md. 462.

The assignee of a sealed instrument has no right of action against the assignor if
the assignment is in writing, but not under seal. Talbott v. Suit, 68 Md. 447.

This section has no application where a surety seeks contribution against his co-surety.
Carroll v. Bowie, 7 Gill, 42.

On the question of whether the assignee has been negligent, see Crawford v. Berry,
6 G. & J. 63. Boyer v. Turner, 3 H. & J. 287.

This section applied. Jackson v. Myers, 43 Md. 462.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 10. 1912, sec. 10. 1904, sec. 10. 1888, sec. 10. 1763, ch. 23, sec. 10.

10. No action shall be maintained in the name of any assignee upon
any assignment mentioned in the preceding section, upon the default of
the obligor, unless the obligee shall have made or shall make oath, to be
endorsed on such bond or obligation, before some justice of the peace, that
he hath received no part of the sum mentioned in such obligation, or but
such part thereof as shall be mentioned in such oath, at the time of making
such assignment.

The assignee of a sealed instrument has no right of action against the assignor if the
assignment is in writing, but not under seal. Talbott v. Suit, 68 Md. 447.

The affidavit under this section held sufficient. Boyer v. Turner, 3 H. & J. 286.

This section applied. Jackson v. Myers, 43 Md. 462; Dorsey v. Barnes, 2 H. & McH.
477.