SAMUEL B. COLE and TAYLOR E. MAJOR, Plaintiffs in error, v. SALIM ABOUNDYAN, HON. A. L. WEEKS, and HON. ROBERT AZANGO,

Circuit Court judges, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County. APPLICATION TO COMPROMISE PROCEEDING. Date of application not indicated. Decided January 27, 1970. 1. A plaintiff has the right to waive security for a debt to which he is entitled. The sureties to an attachment bond, upon whom a writ of summons had been served requiring them to show cause why an application made for seizure and sale of their property in satisfaction of a judgment obtained against their principals should not be granted, applied for a writ of error. At the hearing in chambers, the justice presiding granted them the writ, suspending proceedings in the lower court pending review by the full Court of the issues presented. At the time of argument, counsel for both sides submitted to the Court a proposed settlement of the proceeding, whereby the plaintiffs in error would be discharged from their responsibilities under the bond, without prejudice to the judgment obtained against their principals, from whom satisfaction would be sought. The application was accepted, without consideration of the merits of the instant proceeding. 0. Natty B. Davis and C. Cecil Dennis, Jr., for plaintiffs in error. Morgan, Harmon and Grimes for defendants in error. MR CHIEF JUSTICE WILSON delivered the opinion of the court. During the March 1966 Term of this Court, Samuel B. Cole and Taylor E. Major, filed in the chambers of Mr. 443 444 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Justice William E. Wardsworth, a petition for a writ of error, alleging therein, among other things, that a writ of summons had been served upon them in their capacity as sureties to a defendant’s attachment bond in a matter in which one Salim Aboundyan was plaintiff, and Messrs. Peterf round, Paul Wisebaum, and Nathan Gold were defendants, requiring them to appear before the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, sitting in its December 1966 Term to show cause why an application made for seizure and sale of their properties in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against defendants Peterf round, et al., should not be granted. The alternative writ of error was issued and served, and respondents opposed it. Mr. Justice Pierre, presiding in chambers of this Court during the March 1966 Term heard argument on the petition and returns and on March 23, 1966, entered a ruling declaring null and void the judgment of the court below, abating the proceedings on the attachment bond and ordering the sureties returned to their status quo, commending the case to this Court en banc for review, because of what he considered grave errors in the court below. When this case was reached on our docket and called for argument during this present Term of Court, counsellor Lawrence A. Morgan, one of counsel for defendants in error, by permission of the Court, made the following remarks for the record : “r. That realizing that the sureties, Messrs. Samuel B. Cole and Taylor E. Major, were induced to become sureties to the attachment bond in these proceedings on the understanding that they would be secured by the defendants in the trial court; this not having materialized and the defendants, who are capable of honoring their own obligation having been deported, plaintiffs in error have agreed to release and discharge the said sureties from all proceedings, liabilities and obligations under the attachment bond LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS ‘ 445 without prejudice to their judgment obtained in the lower court, and stipulated that they, the said plaintiffs in the lower court, would take upon themselves the responsibility of the satisfaction of their claim directly from the defendants themselves. “2. In the meanwhile, should counsel for plaintiffs in error desire to pursue that portion of the proceedings relating to the judgment obtained against the defendants as raised in the pleadings, defendants in error are prepared to proceed with the case and this submission is being made without prejudice and submitted.” To this submission counsellor C. Cecil Dennis, Jr., one of counsel for plaintiffs in error, made the following observations : “Counsellor C. Cecil Dennis, Jr., one of counsel for plaintiffs in error, alleged sureties to the attachment bond out of which these proceedings have grown, accepts fully on behalf of Hon. Taylor E. Major and Hon. Samuel B. Cole, the submission made to the court by counsellor Morgan, of counsel for the defendants in error, fully discharging them from any obligation which could be placed against them growing out of an alleged action of debt and especially so from the record before this Court, since there is no record of the proceedings allegedly held in the court below, wherefore an attachment bond executed has been made available to this Court, and submitted.” In attachment proceedings a bond given by a defendant is expressly and exclusively for the benefit and security of the plaintiff, for, according to our statute, it is provided : “Defendants may give bond.–If the judge fails to dissolve the attachment on the defendant’s application, the defendant may give the sheriff a bond in an amount equal to the amount named in the writ, the bond to be secured in the manner provided in section 468, below. The bond shall be to the effect that the 446 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS defendant or his sureties will on demand pay to the plaintiff the amount of the judgment which may be recovered against the defendant in the action, such amount not to exceed the amount named in the bond ; and it shall stipulate that upon their failure to do so the sheriff shall have the right to seize and sell their property to an amount sufficient to pay the judgment and expenses without notice, demand, or any further legal proceedings whatever.” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:410. It follows, therefore, that a plaintiff has the right to waive security for a debt to which he is entitled and this Court, although it would like to probe into and pass on the several issues raised in the petition and the returns, as well as the ruling of the Justice in chambers, finds it impossible to do so in view of the submission of defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs below, and the law just quoted ; especially so when the issues of the responsibility of the sureties and/or the foreclosure of the bond, are the principal issues in these proceedings. In view of the foregoing, we find ourselves with no alternative but to grant the submission, order the sureties forever discharged, without prejudice to the enforcement against the principals of the judgment out of which these proceedings grew, and the clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below informing it of this judgment. Application for settlement granted.