Cross v. . Long , 51 N.C. 153 ( 1858 )

Euinrar, J.

The bond was delivered to the party herself, and, therefore, could not be an escrow. Nor was the instrument executed by her a defeasance, as it was not under seal. It was, therefore, only a collateral agreement in writing, but still in parol; and consequen tly, it could not control the absolute terms of the bond, so as to introduce a condition, as a part of it; Walters v. Walters, 11 Ire. 145. Indeed, this instrument does not purport to speak as a condition, on which the bond was to be void; but is a collateral promise, merely, from the obligee in a certain event, to return or deliver up the bond, or note, as it is called. It was, therefore, improperly received in evidence, and also improperly construed.

PeR Cubiamj Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo.