Craig v. Craig
Court of Appeals of Virginia
This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court, where an action of debt was brought, in Oct. 1792, by the assignee of a bond, with a collateral condition, and the declaration assigned the breaches. The defendant craved oyer of the bond and condition, and pleaded conditions performed. The plaintiff took issue, and obtained a verdict and judgment.
Read the full summary
This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court, where an action of debt was brought, in Oct. 1792, by the assignee of a bond, with a collateral condition, and the declaration assigned the breaches. The defendant craved oyer of the bond and condition, and pleaded conditions performed. The plaintiff took issue, and obtained a verdict and judgment. There was a bill of exceptions, which stated the bond and endorsement, with the defendant’s objection to the admissibility of the evidence. The petition for the supersedeas assigned two errors; 1. That the bond was not assignable. 2. That…
1Opinion of the Court
PENDLETON, President.
Then- you suppose the words payment of money, in the act, to relate to the condition of the bond?
Wickham, yes.
PEE C TJE.
The judgment must be reversed; because “the bond on which the suit is brought, not being for the payment of money or tobacco, but with a condition for performance of covenants, was not, by law, assignable at the time the suit was commenced; which was, therefore, not maintainable by the assignee. ”
Judgment reversed, with costs; and judgment entered for the defendant.*
[* Henderson v. Hepburn, 2 Call, 232; Lewis v. Harwood, 6 Cran. 82; and Meredith’s adm’x.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Waterman v. FrankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Ragsdale v. HagySupreme Court of Virginia · 1852
- Gallego v. Quesnall's AdministratorNew York Court of Chancery · 1806
- Gallego v. Quesnall's AdministratorVirginia Chancery Court · 1806
- Gallego v. Quesnall's AdministratorNew York Court of Chancery · 1806
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.