Case Name: Duncan vs. Hodges
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1827-06
Citations: 4 McCord 239
Docket Number: 
Parties: Duncan vs. Hodges
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
Duncan vs. Hodges
The general rule is that if a blank piece of paper be signed, sealed and delivered, and afterwards written it is no deed, as there is nothing of substance in it.
A deed executed with blanks, and afterwards filled up and delivered by the agent of the party is good.
The plaintiff signed and sealed a printed deed of conveyance of a tract of land, which was attested by two witnesses, and left by the plaintiff with his agent to be filled up, whenever the defendant who had agreed to buy it,, should execute a bond for the purchase money. The defendant being ready to give his bond and to accept the deed, the agent filled up the blanks conveying the land to the defendant, and delivered it to him, who accepted it and gave his bond for the purchase money. This was an action of debt on the bond, and the defence was that the deed was void, neither the grantor nor the subscribing witnesses being present when it was filled up and delivered. The defendant relied on the case of Boyd vs. Boyd, 2 Not and M’Cord 125.
James, J. who tried the cause, charged the jury in favor of the defendant, for whom they found a verdict. — - The plaintiff appealed.
Noble, for the appeal,
cited Blac. Com. 307 ; Com. Dig. Fait A (1.) The grantor could not avoid the deed. It would be an estoppel to him.
HP Craven, contra.
Boyd vs. Boyd was exactly in point. 1 Shep. Touch. 59. The authority to fill up the blank should have been in writing. The deed was the mere substitute for livery of seizen, which required two witnesses. But here there was no witness to the delivery or necessai-y part to consummute the deed.

Opinion:
Curia, per
Johnson, J.
The géneral rule is, that if a blank be signed, sealed and delivered, and afterwards written, it is no deed, and the obvious reason is, that as there was nothing of substance contained in it, nothing could pass by it. But the rule never was intended to prescribe to the grantor the oi'der of time in which the several parts of a deed should be written. A thing to be granted, or person to whom, and the sealing and delivery, are some of those which are necessary, and the whole is consummated by the delivery ; and if the grantor should think proper to reverse this order in the manner of execution, but in the end makes it perfect, before the delivery, it is a good deed. Thus it is said, that if a deed be made with blanks, and afterwards filled up and delivered by the agent of the party, it is good. Anst.229. Com. Dig. tit. Fait. A. (1.) note (/.) Day's ed. It is not pretended that this deed was not perfect as to format the time it was delivered by Gray, the plaintiffs agent; or that he was not instructed by the plaintiff to fill up the blanks and deliver it. And according to this authority the deed is good. In another view I think the same consequences f$how. It is not necessary in all cases that the grantor should in person make delivery of the deed. It may, says Sheppard, be delivered by another, by his appointment, or authority precedent, or assent or agreement subsequent; for omnis ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur. 1 Shep. Touch. 57. And admitting that the deed on account of the manner of its execution and the informality of the delivery was void, yet the plaintiff is bound by his subsequent assent to the execution, manifested by his accepting and claiming the benefit of the contract growing out of it, and he will not be permitted to gainsay or controvert it. It would be a fraud on the defendant which could not be tolerated.
New trial granted.