Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Galveston session, 1867, with an appendix containing the cases of the Galveston session, 1861, etc. Volume 29. Page: 39
ix, 626 p. ; 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1867,] FOSTER V. CHAMPLN. 29
"bond " was not a term wholly unknown to the laws of
this country; it was not imported with the common law;
and we are not to look to that system for its definition.
But we are to give it the same meaning in statutes subsequently
enacted that it had when used in those which existed
prior to the adoption of the common law, and in
these latter, as we have seen, it did not signify an instrument
under seal.
It would be absurd to hold that bonds executed subsequently
to the 20th of January, 1840, under statutes
which existed previous to that time, would be void for
want of a seal, when, if the same character of bonds had
been executed previous to said day, they would have been
valid without it. The introduction of this new system of
jjurisprudence (the common law) could not operate as an
amendment of the statutes then in force, so as to require
the senseless addition of a seal or scroll to make that
contract good which was already valid by the law of the
land.
If the adoption of the common law did not change the
definition and requisites of a bond made in accordance
with previous statutes, it would be unreasonable to hold
that it had this effect as to those executed under statutes
subsequently passed. It would make the signification of
an important legal term to depend upon the date of the
statute in which it was found, and would have a tendency
to create confusion in the interpretation of our laws.
But it is said that the legislature intended to require
more solemnity in the execution of obligations executed
upon an appeal than in those entered into when a case is
taken to the supreme court by writ of error, because the
word "bond " is used in the former case, and the word
"obligation" in the latter. Pas. Dig. art. 1495, note
587. Our inference, drawn from this difference in the
language, is just to the contrary. There can certainly be
no reason for requiring greater formality in the one case
than in the other. The object of the obligors in [29] each
instrument is to secure the opposite party in his costs and
39
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Galveston session, 1867, with an appendix containing the cases of the Galveston session, 1861, etc. Volume 29., book, 1882; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28544/m1/37/: accessed May 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .