McLure v. Colclough

Citations

• 17 Ala. 89

Syllabus

<p>1. It is not a good cause to strike an answer from the file, that it omits the name of one of the defendants in the title of the case, nor that it is interlined in a material part, unless it appears that the interlineation was made after the answer was sworn to, or some other irregularity intervened.</p> <p>2. When one of the allegations of a bill is that a sheriff’s bond was “never received or approved” by the County Court Judge — delivery being essential to a complete and effectual acceptance, proof of such delivery is not irrelevant to the issue tendered by the allegation.</p> <p>S. An actual delivery of a deed is not essential. A delivery good in law may be made by mere words, or by such words and actions as indicate an intention that the deed shall be considered as executed.</p> <p>4. Where the name of P., one of several intended sureties, is affixed to a bond under an authority which the other sureties have at the time an opportunity of examining, and all is done that was contemplated to render the bond effectual, in the absence of fraud, they cannot claim exemption from liability, because the authority is defective and insufficient to bind P.</p> <p>5. The power of a Judge of the County Court to accept and approve the bond of a sheriff is derived from and defined by law. The validity of his official acts, therefore, cannot be affected by his negligence or mistake in the performance of an act not within th'e scope of his official duties.</p>