
    Hansard et als. vs. Bank of Tennessee.
    A delivery of a refunding bond to a Clerk of the Chancery Court in the street* is a good delivery. It is not necessary to its validity that it should have been delivered in his office, or that all the signers should have been present at its delivery, or acknowledged it before him at any time.
    The Bank of Tennessee recovered a judgment against Han-sard, Hodges and Garrett, in the Circuit Court of Claiborne county. Fi. fa. issued, which was superseded by order from Judge Anderson, on the petition of defendants, and jury was empannelled to try the questions involved. It appeared that the defendants had obtained an injunction against the enforcement of the judgment from the Chancery Court; that upon the coming in of the answer of the Bank the injunction was dissolved upon condition, that the Bank should give a bond to refund in the event the Bank should prove unsuccessful in the suit in chancery. The petition for the supersedeas alledged that no such bond had been executed and. aclcnowledged before the Clerk of the Chancery Court. It appeared that the Clerk had taken in the streets a bond in the common and proper form, signed by the defendants. The sureties were not present at any time before the Clerk. A copy of this bond was not lodged with the Clerk of the Circuit Court before the fi. fa. issued. The bond was handed to the Clerk by one of the defendants, and the Clerk looked at it and knew the signatures to be those of the obligors.
    The Judge charged the jury, that if a bond be signed by several and delivered to one of the signers to be delivered to the obligee and it is delivered by him, the bond is delivered, as to all, and was valid as to all.
    The jury returned a verdict, that the bond in question'had been executed and delivered according to the decree of the Chancery Court.
    The Judge thereupon discharged the supersedeas and dismissed the petition.
    The defendants appealed.
    
      Feck, for Hansard et als.
    
    
      ti. R. Rodgers, for the Bank.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs in error being debtors to the Bank of Tennessee, judgment at law was rendered against them, which was enjoined in Chancery. The injunction was dissolved upon answer, on condition that a refunding bond should be executed. This was done, in proper form, and the bond handed to the Clerk of the Chancery Court, in the street, who received it without objection. It was never acknowledged before him by the parties, but he says that he is acquainted with the hand writing of the obligors, and knows the bond to have been executed by them. Thereupon execution was issued on the judgment at law, which was superseded by the plaintiffs, upon the alledged ground that no bond had been given as was required by the decree dissolving the injunction, and the question is, is the bond as proven to have been executed, a good bond. The Circuit Judge held that it was, and we think correctly. There is no particular manner prescribed in which such bonds shall be executed. It is true, that it is the duty of the Clerk to judge of the sufficiency of the bonds, and of .the fact of its having been executed by the obligors, and therefore if in his estimation the bond be not of adequate amount, or of adequate solvency, or if he do not know that it has been signed by the obli-gors, it is his duty not to receive it. But in this case there is no objection to the adequacy,of the amount, or the solvency, and the Clerk was satisfied of the genuineness of the bond from his acquaintance with the hand writing of the parties and therefore required no acknowledgement of its execution; and a delivery to him in the street was as good as if it had been to him in his office, he not objecting.

We are, therefore, of opinion, that the execution was legally issued, and affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.  