See Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Knight, 124 Pa. 58, 16 Atl. 492. The omission from a statutory bond of a clause which does not affect the rights of the parties, and impoies no harder terms upon the obligors, does not invalidate it ; Power v. Graydon, 53 Pa. 198.
Where a bond is for the performance of an illegal contract the parties are not bound thereon ; State v. Pollard, 89 Ala. 179, 7 South. 765.
On the forfeiture of the bond, or its be coming single, the whole penalty was for merly recoverable at law ; but here the courts of equity interfered, and would not permit a man to take more than in con science he ought, viz.: principal, interest, and expenses in case the forfeiture accrued by non-payment of money borrowed, the damages sustained upon non-performance of covenants, and the like. Aud the like practice having gained some footing in the courts of law, the statute 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, at length enacted, that, in case of a bond conditioned for the payment of money, the payment or tender of the principal sum due with interest and costs, even though the bond' were forfeited and a suit commenced thereon, should be a full satisfaction and discharge ; 2 Bla. Com. 340.
All of the obligors in a joint bond are presumed to be principals, except such as have opposite their names the word "se curity;" Harper's Adm'r v. McVeigh's Adm'r, n Va. 751, 1 S. E. 193 ; or unless it is other wise expressed.
If in a bond the obligor binds himself, without adding his 'heirs., executors, and ad ministrators, the executors and adminis trators are bound, bait not the heir ; Shep pard, Touchst. 369 ; for the law will not
imply the obligation upon the heir ; Co. Litt. 209 a.
If a bond lie dormant for twenty years, it cannot afterwards be recovered ; for the law raises a presumption of its having been paid, and the defendant may plead solvit ad diem to an action upon it; 1 Burr. 434 ; 4 id. 1963. And in some cases, under partic ular circumstances, even a less time may create a presumption ; 1 Term 271; Cowp. 109. The presumption of payment after twenty years is in the nature of a statute of limitations. It is available as a bar to an action to recover on the instrument, but not where the party asks affirmative relief based upon the fact of payment; Lawrence v: Ball, 14 N. Y. 477.
Where a company bought in its own de bentures and then reissued them, held that the new holder could not claim part pasge with the other holders; [1904] 2 Ch. 474; so where debentures were used as collateral and the loan was paid and a second loan made; [1907] 2 Ch. 540 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 216 ; [1905] 2' Ch. 587, A. C. But where receivers used the corporate funds to buy in its mort gage funds, it was held that if reissued, they could share in the mortgage security; In re Fifty-Four First Mortgage Bonds, 15 S. C. 304, Simpson, 0. J., dissenting upon the ground that they had been extinguished. In Pruyne v. Mfg. Co., 92 Hun 214, 36 N. Y. Supp. 361, there seems to have been an agree. ment that there was no merger. Corporation mortgages usually provide that all bonds shall share equally in the mortgage secur ity, no matter when issued, so that the Eng lish cases are not in point.