The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-04-07
sUPREldE coURT DECISIONS.
oFBoNDsEx con-
DlTIONs-LIABILITY OF AN EXECUTOR
FOR PROPERTY SOLD And PAYMENT
NOT PROPERLY neutrality-suspicious. In
s SOME UEIMPoRTANTs CASES.

In the Supreme Court Of Appeals yeater.
day Judge Staples delivered the opinion In
the case OF Miller against Fletcher and Others,
being an appeal from the Circuit Court Of
county. $3.50 I
In The yesr 1871 j. T. Fletcher brought on
ac,ien of debt npon a bond executed to him
In September, 1881, by James r. Brown, b.
F. Miller, and John Miller, for 81, 800. The
defendants filed q plea alleging that this
bond was executed by them and delivered
TO the obligee upon the express condition
that 1t was also to be signed by Eastman
Jordan as sn obligor. and that Eastman Jor-
dan had not signed the bond. and 80 the
condition had not been complied with.
The only question considered by the Court
Of Appeals was as to the validity o. this
plea. Judge Staples entered into an elabo.
rate review or the authorities bearing upon
the question. He discussed the principles
Of Law In regard to the delivery Of deeds.
The conclusion he came to was: There ia .
manifest distinction between deed deliv.
cred as ap escrow to third person and .
deed delivered as an escrow to the party
himself. In the former case--that Is, when
the deed Is sealed and delivered upon con.
ditioa to q third person 10 take ef,
feet upon the performance OF that
eonditisn--the deed isinoperative until the
condition is performed, although the obligee
may get possession Of the deed before that
time. But il the deed be delivered to the
party himself-to whom it is made to be
binding upon the grantor Only upon the per.
formance of certain con ditions-in such case,
whatever may be the form of the words, the
delivery Is absolute and the condition inope.
rative. This distinction was enforced by 3
reference to great number of authorities,
and the old law learning Of Coke, Touch
stone, DC.
As the plea in this case averred delivery
to the obligee himself upon condition, the
delivery was absolute and the condition in
operative. The Court of Appeals, without
therefore considering any other question in
the case, was of opinion that the plea of the
defendant was invalid and presented no just
defence TO the action.
The Judgment of the Circuit Court was
therefore affirmed. .., i.
Bray's administrator uS. Hamuer and ais.
From the Circuit Court of the city of Lynch
burg. Affirmed, Judge Mopcure delivering
the opinion OF the Court. Briefly stated, the
case was this a testator died In 1859, leav.
ing one of his sons as his executor, and di.
recting him to sell his property, consisting
mainly of negroes, and distributing it
among bis heirs at law. One Of bis
aons and the minor. children OF another
son lived In Missouri. The executor
made tbe sale In November, 1859, and
through him as his agent the brother in Mis-.
souri, bought the negroes for the minor chill
dren of the dead brother, gave his bond fol-
them without security, and allowed the ne
groes to remain in the executors hands as
security until they were liberated by the
war. The court held that for the failure to
take the proper security of the purchaser the
executor was liable for the value Of the ne
groes at the prices brought by them at the
sale.
Woottou, &C., Us. Trent aud ais. From
the Circuit Court OF Henry. Reversed,
Judge Christian delivering the opinion Of the
court,
Walters us. Hill and ais. From the Cir
cult Court of Ptttsylysnia. Affirmed, Judge
Anderson delivering the opinion of the
court.
White, by, &C., vs. Gouldin's executors
Fully argued by E. c. Moncure, ESQ.,, and
submitted. 4n
Elzy Us. Ball and ais. Partly argued by
Powell Harrison, Esq, and continued unit
to-morrew.