
    CONN vs. JONES. SLOAN vs. GRIFFETH.
    
    
      May 9th.
    
    After a writ of tedU and Cjudg-bT"rerated'on account r0t the writ being tui-nabie^to the 3rd day2 of the iiext term.
    Jn declaring on contracts for the ccnveyance of land, it is not necefTary to allege a demand at the defendant's place of residence j nor that the plain, tiff had the land laid off or attended on the defendant to fee it done,
    
      A bond for the conveyance of land is affigna-ble j & the af-fignee may maintain an action thereon in his own name. In declaiing on an affigned obligation, the allegation thatc before the defen-danc complied it'was a'-figned, ⅛ tanta, mount^o a^5rn"en"of "the" breach that the covenant was not fke °affigno^lth
    
      S. P Reeding •vt.Hickman, Pr. Dec. 254 — See alfo Hubble vs, Muilan£hy,f>oji%
    
    THE first of these cases was as follows :
    ^lc 25fh day July, 1800, Conn, by his writing' under seal, covenanted to convey by deed with general 150 acres of land, to Arnold ; the 150 acres to' t,e part 0f 500, and to be laid oft after 200 acres were 'aid off to another purchaser: the deed to be made v/ith-in six months from the date¿
    On the 6th day of February, 1801, Arnold assigned the bond to M’Cracken ; and on the 29th day of June, 1802, M’Cracken assigned it to Jones.'
    Jones brought suit in the Bourbon circuit court on said bond in his own name. The writ was returnable to the first day of the next ensuing term. The declaration, after the usual recital of the covenant, proceeded as follows, to wit: “ Afterwards and before the said Conn had complied with this said covenant in said bond, to wit &c. setting forth the assignment to M’Cracken as usual. The like allegation was made in alleging the assignment to the plaintiff.
    The breach assigned was as follows : “ and the plaintiff in fact avers that the defendant, although often requested, hath not made a general warranty deed for the said 150 acres of land, in discharge of the writing obligatory aforesaid, in six months from the date thereof, or at any time since, to the said plaintiff.”
    Judgment was taken by default against Conn and his bail, and a writ of inquiry executed and final judgment entered.
    A writ of error was prosecuted, and the following errors assigned : “ The Writ was made returnable to the first instead of the third day of the terto.
    
    “ The breach assigned in the declaration is insuffici-ent — 1st, It does not allege that any demand was made by Arnold at the house of Conn, of the deed covenant-ecj for . nor js stated thathe attended at Conn’s house to receive the deed — 2nd, It is not alleged that Conn did not convey to the said Arnold, the land, agreeably té ¾½ bbndto^rd, It is ⅛⅛⅛ alleged that either of ⅛⅜ assignees ever applied to Conn; at his house, for a deed 4th, The breach assigned, is, that the defendant did iict convey to the plaintiff, the land, within six ntoriths front the date of the bond; whereas tío right to demand Or receive it was vested, until the end of the six months —-5th, It isnot alleged that Arnold, or either of the assignees, ever got the ldfO acres laid off, Or attended Upofi ' the defendant to accompany him to have it laid off;
    
      May 23th.
    
    §⅜ ⅛ ¿j¡ 17^6-7, r. $ 28, i Brad^ 227 — -a^s of 1700; ch. a8, ⅝ 7> P* 5&
    “ A bond for a deed is not assignable so as to vest in the assignee a right to maintain an action in his owtt aame¿”
    
    
      
       Thefe two cafes being intimately conne&ed in principle, it was thought beft to report them together.
    
    
      
       See a£b of 1795, ch. 1, § 23, p. 23 — a¿ts of 1802, ch, 1, § 7, p. &
    
    
      
       v . . , ⅜ ⅜ * Ir a bono be aifigned after it becomes due, the declaration (hould ihow that it was not paid off to the aflignor — Lynch vs. £arrt Pr. Dec. 195- — ⅛⅛-Jfe//vs. Barboür-y this ternf — and Keetan vs Scantland, .
    
    
      
       Bondi, Sic. iornioney or property, are afifjgnabte— Afts of 1796'-7, p. «aíta of i íes» 1798» 2*7* P' ⅛ Brad. 60. But if for a perfo'’-al 4uty, as an indenture of apprenricefli*p, jr is not aihgnable—Shult vs. Travis, Pr. Dec. 164, Pegman vs. Ward, ibid, 361.
    
   By tbe Coufti.

There is no error in the proceed-1 mgs.

Judgment affirmed;

The second was the following:

Griffeth sued Sloan on a covenant to convey íaéd on demand. The declaration assigned as a breach of the covenant* “• that the defendant, although often requested, had not conveyed,” &c;

The defendant put in the pled thathe had nót broken Ms covenám ; óñ whibh «issue ivas joined; He alsO pleaded thathe had been always ready and willing to convey, but that the plaihtiffhad ribt demanded a deed, and then made a tender and proferí of a deed in court.

The plaintiff replied thathe did by u himself dr agent, icferriattcf a conveyance, “ Viz. oil the - — — day of ——-—; before the suing oütthe original writ in this case on ivhich issue was taken; aiid op a demurrer to evidence judgment wás rendered for the plaintiff;

The defendant appealed, and assigned the following errors : “ That there was no legal demand laid bf the deed which the appellant covenanted to make — —That there Was rio demand laid at the appellants house of the deed he agreed to make;

“ The issue joined on the first plea, is wholly iriirha-ferial 5 the covenant being to make the deed on request* and the issue being whether he iriade the deed at all,*n& request being averred.”

In declaring on a central for ike confiyar.ee of lard on i.tmana, a demand Jbould be prc-'ijely al-legui in yoint of -tmie and place.

The Court affirmed the judgment. 
      
       The order book does not fhow the reafons upon which the court gavfc the.ír óecihoní in thefe cafes. In Bridges vs. Hardgrove, Pr. Dec. 153, and Vanarsdale vs. Craig, ibid, 321, it was decided that in declaring on a contract fór conveying land on demand, it was necefiary that the demand íheuld bé . “ precisely alleged;, in point of time'and .place,” ánd “ that the general allegation that he. has often'been required, is not fufficient,” A like dtcifion was aUo-given in the cafe of Stafford vs. Trimble, Spring term, 1809
      The declaration in this latter cafe was therefore delé&ive y but the court iruft have confidered this omiffion fupplied by the averment of a demand made in the replication, and the JiTue taken theteon ; and that the locfe form ill which the averment was therein made, though it would have been bad on fpe-cial demurrer, was cured after verdict by the ftatures of jeofails — See acts of 1796, p 24, § 28, 1 Brad. 226—acts of 1799, ch. 28, § 7, p. 58-See also Robinett vs. Morris's adm'r. poft.
      
      But if rhe court had been of opinion that the law required the demand to have been made at the reiidence of the defendant, it Was matter of fubftance, not of form, ?.nd theomifhon to ftateit would not have been cured by verdidt* —See Chambers vs. Winn, Pr. Dec. 192 and poft, Letcher vs. Taylor, poft.
      
     