The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-19

llvered % the clerk on the nth the time
when he actually received IL; the conten-
ton is there was no delivery IN couicm-
plation OF law till the next day when
the clerk first ascertaIncd 10 Wa lu the
boe of uauers received tho day before.
The clerks knowledge cannot affect the
question. The delivery contemplated by
the statute is actual delivery, placing
the papers I'm the actual possession o. tne
clerk. His omission 20 examine or ms
mistake if he did examine could not al
ter tho fact that the papers had been
actually placed I'm his hands which Is ON
that is contemplated by the statute. Inc
mistakes or commissions Of the clerk
could not change the law il plaintiff
had manfred for the record on the 18th
and had been told 10 had not been re-
ccivod and ne was thereby prevented
from executing the bond and so lost his
rirnt OF appeal he might nave had a
cause OF action against tho clerk, but II
would not have prevented the running
of the statute which In such cases is
imperative.
the wear within which he could ask Tor
writ of error and allowed himself less
than one day after the record was de-
livcrcG 10 the clerk % execute the bond.
Cases cited: PAGE assignee VS.. Fick.ln
cxc'r 10 Va. 2l2, 2tt-N. Ottcroack vs.
Alex. and Fred. RS. Co, 25 Graft. 80,
Yarbrough VS.. Deshazo, Z Graft 90
CONDITION SUBSEQUENT.
Durdis ~. Burdis. Affirmed. Opinion
by Judge Ridley.
Eurdis devised to his wife his homestead
with fbc understanding that his son
Albert would take care of her, and az
her death the homestead should return 10
Albert. as compensation therefor Ihe
wife died before testator. Is Albert emit
ued2 This depends upon whether the
condition p.rredent 90 It's vosting In him.
or eubseo tho non-performance or
which wdud diycst the estate given him
by tho viii.
ued where condition precedent Is
annexed 10 a devise OF realty and us
porformauce IS. or becomes, impossible
tb. doviee fails without default or laches
l,, tbe devisee himself e Jarman. lo;
4 Kent's Com. 1925. Minors Inst, i--Nl,
but II the condition ne subsequent @lu
It's performance become Impossible tHe
rule is different the estate VIII not ne
defeated. and dev.see VIII hoig 10y "o-
eofuta title as n no condition nad peen
.,rovcd 2 Jarman II; 4 kcnts Conn.,
lqo. pideewav vs. Woodhouse, Beav..
g-. parker We. Parker l23 Mass. ana
many other cases.
% There are no technical words - as
+inpuisb between conditions precedent
ana subsequent. The distinction IS mat
,cr ~ construction The same words
NAV irdiNerently make either according
IN the intent OF the maker OF the con-
dtion. III the particular clause or the
y.bolc viii shows that the act must be
norrormed before the estate can vest ana
rondition IS precedent; II II does not
necessarily prccede tho yesting ~ the
estato hut NAV accompany or follow n.
and this can be collected from the whole
viii Inc condition IS subsequent Fin
law We. King. 3 Pet. 3i6; Martin vs. Bal
lore Is Barb, ll9 IN
The words relied on as a condition N
tho cit 10 the son are not annexed
tbereto but are connected with tho devise
~ tho wife: the words "as compensa-
tion therefor" attached 20 the devise 10
Tho SON do not constitute 50 much
condition OF the gift TO him as to show
the motive FOR Il.
But IL the Language be In legal ef-
feet n condition 10 the devise 10 tho son.
there IS nothing in the will that makes
the support Of the wife by their son. ne
cessarllv preccde the vesting IN him or
the remainder but much 20 indicate the
contrary. The obligation relied on as n
condition was not single act 20 be
J done or omitted al once. but might con-