Duffy v. Figgat

• Decision Date: 17 September 1885
• Citation: 80 Va. 664
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: DUFFY & BOLTON v. FIGGAT.

80 Va. 664

DUFFY & BOLTON v. FIGGAT.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

September 17, 1885

LEWIS P., Absent.

Appeal from decree of circuit court of Botetourt county, rendered July 1st, 1884, in the chancery cause of Hammond against Hines, dismissing on demurrer a petition filed by Duffy and Bolton, parties to said cause, and purchasers of land sold under a decree therein, by Houston and Figgat, special commissioners, to rehear and reverse a decree in said cause, rendered May 31st, 1883, and deciding that the joint official bond, in penalty of $4000, on its face apparently complete, and executed April 18th, 1874, by said special commissioners, and by them, or one of them placed among the papers in the cause, was not binding on the obligors therein, on the ground that it had been there placed with the understanding that it was not to be deemed completed until said Houston procured it to be executed by some approved surety.

Opinion states the remaining facts.

Haden & Haden, for the appellants.

J H. H. Figgat, for the appellee.

OPINION

LACY, J.

This is an appeal from the decree rendered in this case on the 31st of May, 1883, and at the June term, 1884. The case is as follows, so far as it is necessary to state the facts:

In the suit in the circuit court of Botetourt of Hammond against Hines, instituted in April, 1869, brought by the plaintiffs, Hammond and others, to subject the lands of Robert Hines, deceased, to the payment of the debts of the said Hines, deceased, due to the said Hammond and others, a decree was entered in the cause directing the sale of the said lands, and the appellee Figgat and T. D. Houston were appointed commissioners to execute the decree, and required to execute bond in the penalty of $100, and again, to collect the purchase money, to execute a bond with security, in the penalty of $4000. These bonds were executed without security, and the money collected in part by one commissioner and in part by the other. The money collected by Figgat was accounted for by him; and the money collected by Houston was accounted for in part by Houston, but as to $248.28 of the money collected of the appellant Duffy, the said Houston defaulted; and as to $87 of the money collected of Bolton, Houston defaulted in like manner, and left the State. The court decreed against the said Duffy and the said Bolton respectively for these sums, and required them to pay a second time the said sums, which decree was accordingly enforced.

From this ruling and action of the circuit court, the said Duffy and Bolton have appealed to this court.

They insist, that as the bond of the said commissioners was a joint bond, it was the bond of both, and that Figgat should be made to answer for the acts of his co-commissioner Houston. But Figgat contending that this bond...