The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-07-03

showed on it's face that the land was sold
for less than two-thirds of its assessed
value, was null and void for want of au-
thority in the commissioner to make the
sale. The Court held that under the act it
was the duty Of the commissioner to bid off
for the United States all lands for which no
person would bid more than two-thirds of
its assessed value, and that they had no au-
thority to sell any land to q purchaser Mt
less than two-thirds Of the assessed value,
except when the owner requested it to be
done, which did not appear in this case.
This case arose upon distress for arrears
Of q ground rent, which Turner insisted had
been extinguished by the tax sale of the
land on which it was charged. Judge Rives
dissented.
WARD EFT AIS. vs.. CHrRN.
This was an action on bond which was
drawn as the joint bond of principal and
four securities. One of the securities did
not sign it, blank space and seal being
left for his name. The securities pleaded
that they executed the paper on condition
that it should not take effect as their bond
unless executed by the other security, who
did not execute it. Judgment was rendered
for the plaintiff in the Circuit Court, and
affirmed by the District Court at Williams
burg. This Judgment was reversed by the
Court of Appeals, which, upon an elaborate
investigation of the law applicable to such
cases, held the following propositions
l. That the rule laid down in the books
that deed cannot be delivered as an
escrow, or upon q condition to the party In
whose favor it is made, and that such de-
livery will enure as an absolute delivery,
uotwith standing the intention to the con-
trary, does not apply to an instrument
which is imperfect on its face, and shows
that something more was to be done besides
delivery to make it complete and perfect
according to the intention Of the parties.
Affirming the decision on this point, in
| Hicks rs. Goode, II Leigh's Reports.
2. That when a bond which was drawn
| for the signature of several persons. one of
wbom has not signed it, is found IN the
hmnds of the obligee, the presumption, IN
| the absence of other evidence, is that 1t was
luly delivered to the obligee as the bond OF
| those whose names are signed to it. Over
ruling the dictum - Judge Cabell in
Hicks Us. Goode, that the face of such o
bond raises presumption that it was not
delivered absolutely, but upon condition
that it should not be binding unless exc
cuted by the other party.
3. That where bond is delivered to o
third person, who Is a stranger to 1t, upon
q condition that it shall take effect only in
a certain event, or upon a certain condl-
ton, it cannot take effect except in that
event or on that condition, and that if it is
delivered to the obligee by the person to
whom it is SO entrusted before the event
happens or the condition is complied with, he
cannot recover upon it, even though he was
not aware of the condition on which 1t was
delivered to the party from whom he re-
| ceived it. ......
4. That the same principle applies when
q bond which is imperfect on its face, be-
ing prepared for the signature of another
obligor who has not signed it, is delivered
on a like condition to the principal or any
other obligor, and is by him delivered to the
obligee before the event happens or the
condition is complied with on which it was
| to take effect The Court did not decide
! whether the same principle would apply
when bond perfect on its face is deliver
ed to the principal or any other obligor on
| a condition, the question not being involved
in the case before the court.
5. That when bond imperfect On Its
| face is delivered to the obligee by those
who have signed it, the obligee is not bound
| by any condition which those parties may
| have intended TO attach TO such delivery
unless the intention to attach the condition
! was known to him.
6. That where the language Of our lnstruc-
| ton is equivocal, but will bear q construc-
! ton that will make it in conformity with
the law Of the case, the court ought not tc
refuse is, because such refusal, uncXplain'
| ed, is calculated &c mislead the jury. The
court, in such q case, should amend the Ian
guage Of the instruction so as to insure 1t;
being understood in the proper sense, ant
should give the instruction to the jury as 81
| amended
| !. That where there are three securitie:
in a Joint bond who unite in a plea OF ~0'
est tdCtum, and two Of them prove that they
executed and delivered the bond upon {
condition that it should not be binding OF
them unless executed by another person a:
security, who was named in it, but who
never executed it, the other security will BIZ
entitled to verdict and Judgment in hiG
favor, though it does not appear that he ex,
ecuted it upon condition, unless there Il
evidence to overcome the presumption
arising from the-facc of the bond that h
only intended to be bound jointly with tbs
other parties who executed it, and not se9e-
rally.