Case ID: scl_3/html/0022-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grimkr, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAMDEN DISTRICT,
    FALL TERM,
    1797.
    The Commissioners of the Treasury v. Ellison and Yongue.
    The persons directed by law to take the official bond of a sheriff, obtained the signatures of the sheriff and his sureties, to a blank paper, on which the bond was afterwards written, and seals affixed;- by them. JSeldj that they were the agents of the sheriff and his sureties, as well as of the public, to perfect the instrument; and that when perfected by them it was binding on the parties.
    Debt on a bond, given by the defendants, and one J. W;; conditiencd that the said J. W. should duly perform the duties of office, as sheriff of the county of Fairfield. J. W. having levied monies on an execution in his hands, appropriated the same to his own úse, and afterwards removed out of the State. The defendants, his sureties, were sued in this action, and pleaded non esi factum, It-appeared, in evidence, at the 'trial, that after J. W. was chosen sheriff, the persons authorised by law to take his bond, with security, tfec-., did. not take the same in the usual manner, but procured the said J. W. and his sureties to subscribe their names to-a sheet of -blank paper, -on which was afterwards' written (ho -bond in -ques. tien ; and seals were afterwards affixed, by them. And there was no evidence that the bond was ever, after the signing as aforesaid, dolivered in due form, or acknowledged by the defendants.
    The counsel for the defendants claimed a nonsuit, and argued that the .paper writing produced, tinder the circumstances,-ex plained in evidence, was not' tlie deed of,the defendants; -and that.it never did constitute an obligation. That the necessary requisites of writing, and sealing, were performed by one of the parties only, without the presence and concurrence of the other. That one essen. iial requisite had been omitted, viz., delivery, without which, it could not be a complete deed. Cited Perk. 118. Co. Litt. 171. ■Com. Dig.Tail', A. 3. 1 Lofft’s Gilb. 110.
    The counsel for the plaintiffs were stopped by
    
      
       If there be blanks left in an obligation, in places material, and filled up afterwards by the assent of the parties, yet the obligation is void. Roll’s Rep. 3D. 3 Roll, Abr. 3.9, 1 Lofft’s GUb. 110,11.1, Moore, 38. 1 Wood’s Conv.'
    
   The court.

Grimkr, J.

Was dear the objection deserved no countenance. For that the law had entrusted to the county coürts the taking of such bonds, in behalf of the public, and would never presume that they were not properly taken; and even if taken in the way this, bond appears to have been taken, yet the courts ought to support them. The county -courts may be considered as the agents of the defendants, as well as of the treasurers,or the public.; and as agents of the defendants they wrote and executed the:bond, pursuant to the intention of both parties. That good faith, and the public interest, required that such a construction should be made of the transaction as might confirm the bond, and compel the defendants to answer according to the intention, of the parlies, as evidenced' by the nature of the transaction, if consistent with the rules and principles of law. Upon this principle the bond ought to be consideíéd as the concurrent act of the parties, executed by tlioir mu. tual agent, conformably to their express directions;

Mathis, for plaintiffs. Bkevak», fot defendants.

Nonsuit refused. Verdict for the plaintiffs.

A motion was afterwards madé, in this cause, for a new trial, iri the Constitutional Court at Columbia, in which the same doctrine' Was insisted on for the defendants as ih the argument above stated ; but the court refused to grant a new trial, being of opinion that the presiding judge,' at the trial in íhé district court, had properly decided.

Note. — Th'a writing must be finished before it be sealed and delivered, or, at least, before it be delivered; for nothing can be added to it afterwards : nor can" any alteration be made in it; and, therefore, if a blank be left for the sum, which is filled up after sealing and delivery this will make the deed void. Moore, 28. Hetley, 136. Co. Litt. 225. b. Wood’s Conv. 197.