
    Craig v. Craig.
    [Thursday, April 11, 1799.]
    Bonds -Collateral Condition — Assignability—Statute. —Bond, with a collateral condition, was not assignable before the act of Dec. 1795 : and, therefore, the assignee of such a bond, could not maintain an action on it.
    This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court, where an action of debt was brought, in Oct. 1792, by the assignee of a bond, with a collateral condition, and the declaration assigned the breaches. The defendant craved oyer of the bond and condition, and pleaded conditions performed. The plaintiff took issue, and obtained a verdict and judgment. There was a bill of exceptions, which stated the bond and endorsement, with the defendant’s objection to the admissibility of the evidence. The petition for the supersedeas assigned two errors: 1. That the bond was not assignable. 2. That no material issue was joined.
    Wickham, for the plaintiff in the supersedeas.
    I shall not trouble the Court with any observations upon the last error, because I deem the first sufficient to reverse the judgment. The present act of Assembly, [Dec. 1795, c. 125, § 5, R. C. ed. 1819,] allows bonds pf this nature to be assigned, and permits the assignee to sue in his own name. But this bond was made anterior to that act; and, therefore, is not affected by it. So, that it stands upon the old act altogether; which merely relates to bonds for payment of money.
    
      
      Bonds — Collateral Condition — Assignability.—In tile principal case It was held that a bond, with a collateral condition, was not assignable before' the act of Dec. 1795 ; and, therefore, the assignee of such a bond, could not maintain an action on It. On this question the principal case is cited in Meredith v. Duval, 1 Munf. 85 ; Gallego v. Quesnall, 1 H. & M. 204; Burns v. Hays, 44 W. Va. 505, 30 S. E. Rep. 102.
      See generally, monographic note on “Bonds” appended to Ward y. Churn, 18 Gratt. 801.
    
   *PENDLETON, President.

Then you suppose the words payment of money, in the act, to relate to the condition of the bond?

Wickham, yes.

PER CUR. The judgment must be reversed; because “the bond on which the suit is brought, not being for the payment of money or tobacco, but with a condition for performance of covenants, was not, by law, assignable at the time the suit was commenced; which was, therefore, not maintainable by the assignee.”

Judgment reversed, with costs ; and judgment entered for the defendant.  