(after stating the facts). The clerk ought to have required, and the plaintiff ought to have given, a formal undertaking as required by the statute. Indeed, it is more orderly, better and safer, in all cases to observe strictly statutory requirements in matters of procedure. A contrary course never fails to result in irregular and confused practice, and is attended in almost every case with more or less hazard to litigants.

The bond written on the summons in this ease, is certainly informal, and in some respects not very definite and certain, but taking it in connection with the summons, its purpose as indicated by its terms, and applying it as contemplated by the statute, we think it ought to be treated as in effect a sufficient undertaking. Although in form a bond, the law determines its nature *32 and effect, and treats it as an undertaking under seal. The seal does not defeat its purpose1. The clerk and the obligee intended it to be taken with, and as part of the summons, and by reasonable, just and almost necessary implication, the words “defendant” and “ plaintiff ” employed in it, mean, and were intended to mean, the persons mentioned in the summons by namie as such, and as certainly as if they had been mentioned by their names respectively in the body of the bond. The sum of money mentioned in, and the condition of, the bond, are such as the law requires, and it must be treated as a sufficient undertaking.

There is error. Let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court according to law. It is so ordered.

Error. Reversed.