Case Name: Bartley and Ferguson v. Yates
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1808-05-02
Citations: 2 Hen. & M. 398
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Bartley and Ferguson v. Yates.
Judges: JUDGE ROANE was in favour of affirming the judgment.
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
*Bartley and Ferguson v. Yates.
Monday, May 2, 1808.
Bonds — Obligatory Part of — Blank for Name of Surety. —Tho’ there be a total blank for the name of the surety in the obligatory part of a bond, yet his name being mentioned In the recital of the condition, and he having signed and sealed It, it was held sufficient to charge him.
Same — Condition of Forthcoming Bond — Blank for Name of Sheriff. — A blank being left In the condition of a forthcoming bond for the name of the high sheriff, to whom the property was to be delivered at the time and place of sale, was held not to vitiate it, the name oí the high sheriff having been mentioned in a former part of the condition.
This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the General Court, recovered by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs, upon a forfeited forthcoming bond, in the following words:
“Know all men by these presents, that we, Joshua Bartlett and ,are held and firmly bound unto William Yates, in the just and full sum of fifty-four pounds fourteen shillings and ten-pence, to the payment whereof well and truly to be made to the said William Yates, his certain attorney, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns; we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, and dated this fourth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and two.
“The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas William Yates hath sued out of the General Court of Virginia a writ of fieri facias against the goods and chattels of the above bound Joshua Bartlett, which writ, with the legal costs attending the same, amounts to the sum of twenty-seven pounds, seven shillings and five-pence; and whereas Geo. Perkins, deputy, David Coupland, sheriff of Buckingham County, by virtue of the said writ to the said sheriff directed, hath taken the following property belonging to the said Joshua Bartlett to satisfy the same, to wit: one negro girl by the name of Mariah; and the said Joshua Bartlett, being desirous of keeping the said property in his possession until the day of sale of the same, hath tendered the above bound James Ferguson as security for the forthcoming and delivery thereof on the day and at the place of sale, agreeable to an act of Assembly in that case made and provided. Now, if the above bound Joshua Bartlett and James Ferguson, or either of them, do and shall deliver *the aforesaid property to the said ,either of his deputies at William Cheek’s Tavern in Buckingham County, on the twenty-second day of this month, that being the time and place appointed for the sale; then the above obligation to be void, or else to remain in full force and virtue.
“Joshua Bartley. (Seal.)
“James Ferguson. (Seal.)
“Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of
“Geo. Perkins.”
Randolph, for the plaintiffs in error,
assigned as reasons for reversing the judgment, that in the obligatory part of the bond, the name of James Furgeson is not mentioned; and that no person is named to whom the property was to be delivered.
Williams and Call, for the defendant in error,
contended that the signing, sealing and delivery of the bond by Ferguson, although his name should have appeared in no part of it, except in the signature annexed to the seal, was sufficient to charge him: but in this, his name is inserted in the recital of the condition,
The blank left for the name of the sheriff must necessarily refer to the sheriff whose name had been before mentioned.
Bonds — Obligatory Part ot — Blank for Name of Obli-gors. — It was held in Beale v. Wilson, 4 Munf. 380, citing the principal case, that a forthcoming bond, appearing in other respects to be in proper form, ought not to be quashed on the ground that a blank is left for the names of the obligors in the obligatory or penal part of the bond. The principal case is cited and approved in Berry v. Homan, 8 Gratt. 51.
See monographic note on “Bonds” appended to Ward v. Churn, 18 Gratt. 801.
Cro. Jac. 261; Dobson v. Keys, 5 Bac. Abr. Gwil. edit. tit. “Obligations.” let. B. 157, 158; Ibid, let. C. 159, 160; 2 Salk. 262; Cromwell v. Grunsden, 1 Call, 49; Wilkinson v. Mac Lochlin & Co.

Opinion:
Monday, May 9. The Judges delivered their opinions.
JUDGE) TUCKER.
The errors assigned in the petition for a supersedeas in this case, are, that the name of James Ferguson, one of the parties whose name is subscribed to the bond, is not mentioned in the obligatory part of a forthcoming bond given by Bartley, against whom an execution at the suit of Yates had issued; and that no person is named, to whom the property is to be delivered, the name *of the high sheriff being left blank, in that part of the condition.
The first of these omissions, I think, is amply compensated by the recital in the condition, that Bartley had tendered the above bound James Ferguson as his security, and by the delivery of the bond by Ferguson, as his act and deed, a circumstance not denied. The second, if not supplied by the name of the high sheriff mentioned in the former part of the condition, is fully supplied, I conceive, by the directions of the law,, that such delivery is to be made to the sheriff, at the time and place appointed for the sale of the property, both which particulars are mentioned in the bond.
Where a party, against whom an execution issues, obtains an indulgence, upon certain conditions, the Court will not regard trifling errors which are often the effect of haste or inexperience in young deputy-sheriffs, with an eagle's eye, where the substantial 'justice of the case, or the positive and invariable rules of law, do not require them to do so.
JUDGE ROANE was in favour of affirming the judgment.
JUDGE FLEMING.
The counsel for the plaintiffs in the supersedeas made two-points in this case: 1st. Whether Ferguson, whose name is omitted in the penal part of the bond, but who is stated in the condition as the security, and who has signed and sealed it, be bound in law? If not bound, 2dly. Whether the judgment, which is. against Bartley and Ferguson jointly, shall be reversed in toto, or in part only?
With respect to the first point, it is laid down in the case of Mathew v. Purchins, that, if the meaning of the parties can be collected from the bond, it will be good. Again, the name of the obligor subscribed is sufficient, though there be a blank for his Christian name in the bond, So I conceive it to be in the present case, although there is a total blank for the security's name in the penalty of the bond; he being stated in the condition a security for the delivery of the property, to which he put his signature and seal.
It is laid down in Goddard's case, that only three things are necessary to-making a good obligation, to wit, writing on paper or parchment, sealing and delivery ; and it has since been adjudged not to be necessary that the obligor should sign or subscribe his name; and therefore, if the obligor be named Erlin, and he sign his name Erlevin, this variation is not material, because subscribing is no essential part of the deed, sealing being sufficient, This point then being against the present plaintiff, it seems immaterial to consider the others; and the judgment of the District Court must be affirmed in toto.
By the whole Court, (absent Judge Lyons,) the judgment of the General Court affirmed.
Gro. Jac. 203.
Cro. Jac. 261, Dobson v. Keys.
2 Co 5a.
2 Salk. 462.