BO N D. An obligation in writing and un der seal. Taylor v. Glaser, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 502 ; Pinkard v. Ingersol, 11 Ala. 19 ; Can tey v. Duren, Harp. (S. C.) 434 ; Deming v. Bullitt, 1 Biackf. (Ind.) 241; Denton v. Adams, 6 Vt. 40; Harman v. Harman, 1 Baldw. 129, Fed. Cas. No. 6,071; Biery v. Steckel, 194 Pa. 445, 45 Atl. 376.
It may be single--•.imp/em obligatio—as where the obligor obliges himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, to pay a cer tain sum of money to another at a day nam ed, or it may be conditional (which is the kind more generally used), that if the oblig or does some particular act, the obligation shall be void, or else shall remain in full force, as payment of rent, performance of covenants in a deed, or repayment of a prin cipal sum of money, borrowed of the ob ligee, with interest, which principal sum is usually one-half of the penal sum specified in the bond.
There must be proper parties; and no person can take the benefit of a bond except the parties named therein ; Fuller v. Fuller ton, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 59; except, perhaps, in some cases of bonds given for the perform ance of their duties by certain classes of public officers; Fellows v. Gilman, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 414 ; Ing v. State, 8 Md. 287 ; Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio 418, 22 Am. Dee. 759 ; Bak er v. Bartol, 7 Cal. 551; Hartz v. Com., 1 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 359; State v. Druly, 3 Ind. 431. A man cannot be bound to him self even in connection with others; Smith v. Lusher, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 688. See McDowell v. Butler, 56 N. C. 311. But if a bond is given by the treasurer of a corporation to the directors as a class, of which he is one, it is not for that reason invalid; Durburow v. Niehoff, 37 Ill. App. 403. If the bond run to several persons jointly, all must join in suit for a breach, though it be condition ed for the performance of different things for the benefit of each ; Pearce v. Hitch cock, 2 N. Y. 388.
The instrument must be in writing and sealed : Harman v. Harman, 1 Baldw. 129, Fed. Cas. No. 6,071; Denton & Smith v. Adams, 6 Vt. 40; but a sealing sufficient where the bond is made is held sufficient though it might be an insufficient sealing if it had been made where it is sued on ; Mere dith v. Hinsdale, 2 Caines (N. Y.) 362. The
signature and seal may be in any part of the instrument ; Reed v. Drake, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 345. See McLeod v. State, 69 Miss. 221, 13 South. 268. An instrument not under seal is not a bond and will not satisfy a statute requiring an appeal bond; Corbin v. Las well, 48 Mo. App. 626; although in the body thereof it is recited that the parties there to have set their hands and seals; Williams v. State, 25 Fla. 734, 6 South. 831, 6 L. It. A. 821.
It must be delivered by the party whose bond it is to the other ; Carey v. Dennis, 13 Md. 1; Chase v. Breed, 5 Gray (Mass.) 440; Towns v. Kellett, 11 Ga. 286; Harris v. Reg ester, 70 Md. 109, 16 Atl. 386. But the de livery and acceptance may be by attorney: Madison & I. Plank-Road Co. v. Stevens, 10 Ind. 1. The date is not considered of the substance of a deed ; and therefore a bond which either has no date or an impossible one is still good, provided the real day of its being dated or given, that is, delivered, can be proved; 2 Bla. Com. 304; Corn. Dig. Fait, B, 3 ; :Ross v. Overton, 3 Call (Va.) 309, 2 Am. Dec. 552. There is a presumption that a deed was executed on the day of its date ; Steph. Dig. Ey. Art. 87; Costigan v. Gould, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 290.
The condition is a vital part of a condi tional bond, and generally limits and deter mines the amount to be paid in case of a breach; Strang v. Holmes, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 224; but interest and costs may be added ; Van Wyck v. Montrose, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 350; Campbell v. Pope, 1 Hempst. 271, Fed. Cas. No. 2,365a. The recovery against a surety in a bond for the payment of money is not limited to the penalty, but may ex ceed it so far as necessary to include inter est from the time of the breach. So far as interest is payable by the terms of the con tract, and until default made, it is limited by the penalty ; but after breach it is re coverable, not on the ground of contract, but as damages, which the law gives for its vi olation; Brainard v. Jones, 18 N. Y. 35.