Case ID: del_12/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miers Reynolds’ Administrators v. George S. Grier.
    
      Parties to Suit.
    
    A suit on a bond given to A and Son, if brought in the name of A alone, will be dismissed for want of proper parties.
    
      (Sussex,
    
    
      April 8, 1886.)
    
    Action op Debt on a bond with a condition.
    The action was brought in the name of Miers Reynolds, who afterwards died and his administrators were admitted as plaintiffs.
    The condition contained an agreement between the parties in which each of them bound himself to the other in the penal sum of five hundred dollars.
    Robert D. Grier, subscribing witness to the bond, and the son of the defendant, saw his father, George S. Grier, one of the parties to it, sign his name to it as such, but he did not see the name of M. Reynolds and son subscribed to it by any one, nor does he know the hand writing, or by whom it was signed.
    Bond offered in evidence.
    
      Charles F. Richards, for the defendant,
    objected to its admissibility in evidence: 1. Because of the alterations of the bond by interlineations. 2. The action is by Miers Reynolds alone, and not in the name of Miers Reynolds & Son.
    
      James Lofland and Charles M. Cullen, for the plaintiff.
    
      Charles F. Richards and Jacob Moore, for the defendant.
   The Court

sustained the objection and ruled out the bond as evidence, and the agreement contained in the condition of it, on the second ground.

The plaintiffs took a non-suit.