
    Thos. Gibson, v. B. Dunnam.
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Evans, at Greenville — Spring Term,, 1833.
    Debt, on a penal bond, with a condition to make ties to a tract of land, by the first of March then next following The defendant had bought the land sheriff’s sale and sold it to the plaintiff, but not ingthe title deeds, could not describe it with sufficient certainty. He therefore gave this bond, and in the condition stipulated, that the title to be executed, should correspond with a deed from Burdine to Rutledge, who formerly owned the land. This deed was in the possession of the plaintiff’s son, but this fact was kept concealed from the defendant, and the plaintiff had requested his son, not to give it to the defendant. The defendant had used exertions to get the deed, and had applied to the plaintiff’s son to aid him. The day having passed, and the condition broken, this action was brought, pending which, the defendant has tendered a title. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the interest on the purchase money, and the defendant appealed, on the ground, that the plaintiff having prevented the performance of the condition of the bond, was not entitled to recover.
    
      If the obligee bond, this ¡j go<¡i |e excuso for ance-anfdimthe SemHüJdto Recondition,
   Curia per

Johnson J.

If the obligee of a bond by his own act puts it out of the power of the obligor, to perform the condition of the bond, it is very clear that it is a good legal excuse for not having performed it. Co. Lit. 206. b. Com. dig. condition, L. 6. It is in conformity with the cardinal principle, that no one shall take advantage of his own wrong.

The undertaking of the defendant, was to make a title to the plaintiff corresponding with the description of the land, in the deed executed by Burdine to Rutledge ; access to this deed was therefore indispensably necessary to the defendant, and this the plaintiff, through the agency of his son prevented, by suppressing the truth, with the avowed object of preventing the performance of the condition, and if this was done before the condition of the bond was broken, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover a farthing. If afterwards, the damages ought to have been merely nominal, for such a fraud ought not to meet with any countenance»

Motion granted.  