Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-25
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VRclNlAN-PILoT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of Interest to
Our People.
BLANKENsHIP V. ELY

v. ~
Supreme Court of Appeals OF Virginia.
June 81, 1900.
A BOND EXECUTED UNDER OR
DER OF COURT DOES NOT DE-
RIVE ITS EFFICACY FROM THE
ORDER: THE PARTIES EXEClJT.
ING 1T CANNOT DENY ITS RE-
C1TALS.
SUCH BOND HAVING BEEN SIGN
ED IN THE WIFES NAME BY
HER HUSBAND AT HER RE-
QUEST BINDS HER AND HER co.
OBLIGORS.
WHEN THE GENERAL ISSUE HAS
BEEN PLEADED SPECIAL PLEAS
SETTING UP MATTERS WHICH
COULD BE PROVED UNDER THE
GENERAL ISSUE SHOULD BE RE-
JECTED.
The court says:
The court is OF opinion that the de-
murrer to the declaration was properly
oNerruled. The bond sued on was ex-
eculed IN pursuance OF a decree of the
circuit Court of Lee county. The de-
remnants craved oyer of the bond and
vi the decree directing it's execution
and then demurred upon the ground
mat the bond does not derive its eni-
cacy from the order. 1t would be n
valid and binding instrument, even
though the record of the chanccry case
had been silent with respect to its eX-
ecution. In determining the liability
or the parties to the bond we must
look TO the instrument alone, and not
10 the order of the court in regard to
It's execution and although the instru-
ment may contradict the record, the
parties executing 1t are estoppcd to
deny its recitals.
:, The court is further of opinion that
the four pleas rendered by the defend
ant were properly rejected. Whether
or not these pleas were good we need
not enquire. The plea of non est fac
tum, the general issue. was put in I'm
der this plea 1t was competent to show
any fact that could have been proven
under the special pleas. had they been
admitted. and it is apparent from the
character OF the evidence that the de-
PENDANTS aVailed themselves of their
rights in this respect without objection
from the plaintiff.
Where the general issue has been
pleaded, special pleas that set UT mat
ter of defense which can be proved un-
der the general issue should be re-
jectcd
The court is further OF opinnion that
the plea of null tiel record was prop
criy rejected. The object OF this plea
was To contradict the recita!s of tho
bond with the record of the chancery
SUIT. This question has been consider
cd IN disposinE OF the demurrer, and
WHAT'S there said need not be repeat ted
here. The bond is on it's face, In all
respects. a complete instrument duly
signed by each of the obligors named
in the body OF the bond. including NJ.
H. Woodward. IT. appears from the
uncontradicted testimony of John w.
Woodward that he signed the bond for
his wife. NJ. II. Woodward. at her re-
quest The bond thus executed was
filed in the chanccry cause as shown
by the endorsement of the clerk there
on. was acted upon by NJ. l.. Wood
ward receiving and enjoying the bcne-
fits resulting from its execution. and
was relied upon by G.. il. Ely as his
protection in lieu or the injunction and
receiver asked for by him. If. there
fore the defendants had the right. in
this action. TO rely upon the conditions
mentioned (Which we by no means con-
cade. Miller V. Fletcher. q Graft. 403),
such conditions were substantially
complied with. All of the parties con
templated did sign the bond. and NJ. l..
Woodward has been held liable by tho
Judgment complained of. so that no
ono has been injured by reason of her
failure to sign and acknowledge the
bond IN proper person. Affirmed.