Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-07-11
WILLIAM CULLOM VS.. STERLING wARl


WILLIAM CULLOM vs. STERLING WARD.
day july 1885, A. Thomas exhibited to
the Hon hGtain a bin agsirs. william Guiiom and j.
enoin execution in favor of William Cuom again
lars office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
Smith county upon Judgment obtained in that court by
| CulOm against him at its March term 1865.
The fiat of his honor directed the CLERK and Master of the
9 tb n2iti. in Nh. n Of seven tbou,and and
seventy dollars conditioned to the Judgment for
five hundred dollars with interest DANA
and costs in case the Injunction should dissolved
pay such damages might be sustained by the wrongful
such injunction issue the writ of injunction
restraining the collection of tho Judgment according to the
The BILL with this fiat thereon was day July
the Clerk ard Master of the Chancery Court
bond with James Thomas $. Ward, solomon
orange suretie for the of the suit the Clerk and
! and Master took from James A. Thomas an Injunction
Circuit Judge with S. Ward Mathew Gstros Solomon
Thomas and F. NJ. Orange as suretes thereto.
This bond bears date the 18th day Of July e65 The in
junction issued the I7th served the 18th day
july 1865 On the 10Th day of August 1865 g Ward filed
his petition in the seeking to be released from his Obga
ton the surees the injunction bond upon the
ground that he had signed his thereto the cond
ton that he was not to be bound thereby unless one william
Whitney and other good and solvent persons should ais
put their thereto suree and that the bond
without this condition having been complied WITH delivered to
the Clerk and Master.
The cause was the day August, 1866
missing compliments bill for equity And there
A. Thomas S Ward solomon Thomas and F. n Orange as
his surees in the injunction bond in the of hirtysix
amount of the principal interest and COSTS of the Judgment
enjoincd this decree Ward alone appealed
this court and seeks reversal the judgment against
him as one of the sureties in the injunction bond
His petition to be released from the obligation of the bond
appears heard connection with the original
and witnesses have been examined open
touching the matters therein alleged the grounds
sought. Their in
bill of exceptions made part of the record The testimony
the first of the witnesses Edward UpOn examined
substance that he the of Sterling Ward
New Middleton, day which Ward signed the bond
that G. f. Thomas, who the father of James A Thomas
and who acting agent for James A., took him aside
before the bond signed and asked him TO become
thereto telling him it only for COSTS and
Sterling Ward, William B. Whitley and other good men
the store +. Ward stepped into
another and their return into the where he had
did hear the conversation any, between Thomas
Ward before the latter signed the bond that on their
turn into with the bond, and Wards to it,
remarked that if he had known the witness and W
not have done T. Thomas said that W B Whitley
and other good would sign it his might remain
J. Johnson the second Of these witnesses that
the ay before that signed bond he had
conversation with Ward in which Ward told him If he and
Whitley and other good men, would sign the bond he would
signed the BOND was IN the store OF ward and Thomas
and Ward stepped into adjoining with the bond and
had been signed to the bond; that he then refused
sign bond, Ward said if he had witness and
Upton would not sign the bond he would signed it
NJ " "a WiI am r wbitIev and otbsT Soo1 men oud ign
it. would willing let his remain the bond
and Ward said " he would, otherwise he was not willing
Both witnesses that William B. Whitley owns
valuable tract Of land good property and that
Mathew Getro Thomas and F. Orange have very
| little property.
The testimony of the third these witnesses, VIM B.
Whitley, that G. F. Thomas applied TO him behalf OF h
SON. Thomas to sign the bond which he refused TO
and that Mathew Getros Solomon Thomas and r OranSe
There 10 no proof that C. T. Thomas part he took in
obtaining signature Ward this bond acted BY the
direction OF or Clerk and Master Indeed the ael
shown to have seen or heard Of the ponG IN
tiou until accepted by him. ana nled IN MS oCe
inr this case are we'll settled Delivery Kent, ith VOL
a another incident essential TO the due execution OF deed
The deed may delivered to the party himself to whom
is made or to any Other person s s 1 eo bS
conditional delivery to the stranger, to be kept by
d over 70 the crantse The general laid down to
the nature of escrow has been uniformly rseognLu' &
upon by this court in all its decisions upon Inc ~
question. c;b,, = Hurn
400 said, to the first point the sealing ana @
Of all being denied 1t IS incumoent on MIN
800 aTmayeIy not that the principal promised something
further should by Of induement 10 ms execution
Of the upon which he to become bound or the
% the court held the proof did not show that Mari
had signed sealed the paper upon the condition that he
vas not 10 be bound thereby the not be delv
@ A. his act deed unless Debrl should sign and
ss il and therefore that MARI bound. The proof
that Gibbs the principal thought that Mari manifested
some hesitation sign and single upon which he
him that he would also procure Drbe his
who worth three thousand dollars
to the same and if it worst he bad funds
his CONTROL within his reach tn" bill Mari
executed the Instrument Di6el not being at hand oOS DE-
livered the bill TO the plaintiff.
In the of Carrick French, ct al hump TINS court
said Its however, certain that the complainant dd MOI
deliver the bill single with his signature upon tine
that it should be signed either Henry Simpson or jenkins
and that not being upon this condition. 1t Il no ~
( crow, and cannot be Cancelled ,-,,. =, ~, l.,
In that the facts we're that William NJ frencn hsi
out al pub property the amount OF one thousand
dollars the executors handed him note
rod for the signature of six for the purpose OF
ettng obger for the payment of that in twelve
months that signed it himself that attorney in fact he
stoned the of Hugh L. French and C. Thomas
and that presented to the complainant for his sig
nautre the latter went to it, French told him
a seal between Benjamin Thomas signature and
own Francis A. Henry would sign his between