Delivery and acceptance essential to validity of deed, sec 677.

Deed takes effect from delivery, sec 678.

Escrow is a deed delivered on condition, sec 679.

Sealing is a solema mode of assent, sec 680.

Due sealing will be presumed, sec 681.

Sealing imports consideration, sec 682.

Consideration cannot be disputed by those claiming under deed, sec 683.

Simple contracts distinguishable from sealed contracts as to quality, as to consideration, and as to merger, sec 684.

Sealed obligations have longer limitations than unsealed, sec 685.

No priority to specialty debts, sec 686.

Alteration after execution avoids: filling in blanks, sec 687.

Party executing deeds is bound, though other party has not executed, sec 688.

Common money bond binds only for actual indebtedness, sec 689.

Specialty may be modified or rescinded by parol, sec 690.

Rules of construction the same as for other documents, sec 691.

Sec 677

To make a deed operative, it is necessary that it should either be delivered to the grantee or his agent, or retained in express trust for him by the grantor.1 It is not necessary that it should be put for this purpose actually in the hands of the If the grantor retain it in his possession for the grantee's use, to be handed to the grantee when called for, the intention being expressed to be that the deed should be operative at once, this is equivalent to a delivery.3 Delivery to a stranger for the grantee's use is equivalent to delivery to the grantee, though to have this effect it should have been manifestly so intended.1 Possession by the party to be benefited by a deed is a ground from which to infer delivery.2 Delivery of a deed may be inferred from the fact that it is left unconditionally with the proper officer after acknowledgment;3 and from the fact that it has been duly recorded;4 though this may be rebutted by proof that grantor never was out of possession and the grantee never in possession.5 Delivery of a deed may be also inferred from transfer of possession of property and possession of the concomitant papers,6 and it may be proved and disproved by parol.7 Delivery, therefore, is a question of fact to be determined on all the circumstances of the case.8 And the mere fact that a grantor retains possession of a deed is not sufficient in equity to make it inoperative, when it is proved aliunde that he regarded it as delivered.9 But in such cases it should be satisfactorily shown that a delivery was effected, notwithstanding the detention by the grantor.10 - Acceptance as well as delivery is essential to give validity to a deed, and this acceptance must be before the rights of third parties have intervened.1

Delivery essential to validity of deed.

grantee.2

1 Murray V. Stair, 2 B. & C. 82; 3 D. & R. 278; Watkins V. Nash, L. R. 20 Eq. 262; Xenos V. Wickham, L. R. 2 H. L. 296; Younge V. Guilbeau, 3 Wall. 636; Merrills V. Swift, 18 Conn. 261; Berkshire Ins. Co. V. Sturgiss, 13 Gray, 178; Whitaker V. Miller, 83.

Ill. 381; Fraser V. Davie, 11 S. C. 56; Davis V. Williams, 57 Miss. 843.

2 Cocks V. Simmons, 57 Miss. 183.

3 Garnous V. Knight, 5 B. & C. 671; Xenos V. Wickham, L. R. 2 H. L. 296; see Hawkes V. Pike, 105 Mass. 560; Latham V. Udell, 38 Mich. 238.

1 Leake, 2d ed. 136; Doe V. Knight, 5 B. & C. 671; Thatcher V. Church, 37 Mich. 764.

2 Wh. on EV. sec 1313-4; Hall V. Bainbridge, 12 Q. B. 699; Vernol V. Vernol, 63 N. Y. 45; Black V. Shreve, 13 N. J. Eq. 455; Den V. Farlee, 21 N. J. L. 280; Carson V. Phelps, 40 Md. 73; Tunison V. Chamblin, 88 Ill. 378; Berry V. Anderson, 22 Ind. 36; Green V. Yarnell, 6 Mo. 326; Firemen's Ins. Co. V. McMillen, 29 Ala. 147.

3 Shaw V. Heyward, 7 Cush. 170; Blight V. Schenck, 10 Barr, 285; Gage V. Gage, 36 Mich. 229.

4 Berkshire Ins. Co. V. Sturgiss, 13 Gray, 178; Gilbert V. Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 43; Knolls V. Barnhart, 71 N. Y. 474; Boardman V. Dean, 34 Penn. St. 252; Mitchell V. Ryan, 3 Oh. St. 377; Union Ins. Co. V. Campbell, 95 Ill. 267; Cecil V. Beaver, 28 Iowa, 241; Holliday V. White, 33 Tex. 460; though see Hawkes V. Pike, 105 Mass. 560.

5 Knolls V. Barnhart, 71 N. Y. 474. 6 Wh. on EV. sec 1313-4; Dukes V.

Spangler, 35 Oh. St. 119; Tharp V. Jarrell, 66 Ind. 52; Goodwin V. Ward, 6 Bax. 107.

1 Murray V. Stair, 2 B. & C. 82; S. C, 3 D. & R. 278; Stanton V. Miller, 65 Barb. 58; Beall V. Poole, 27 Md. 645; Dukes V. Spangler, 35 Oh. St. 119; Gunnell V. Cockerill, 84 Ill. 319; Newton V. Beales, 41 Iowa, 334. As to conditional delivery, see Wh. on EV. sec 930; infra, sec 679.

8 Xenos V. Wickham, L. R. 2 H. L. 296; Howe V. Dewing, 2 Gray, 476; Cannon V. Cannon, 26 N. J. Eq. 319; Den V. Farlee, 21 N. J. L. 285; Duer V. James, 42 Md. 492; Wellborn V. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267.

9 Shelton's case, Cro. Eliz. 7; Regan V. Howe, 121 Mass. 424; Souverbye V. Ar-den, 1 Johns. Ch. 256; Cannon V. Cannon, 26 N. J. Eq. 319; Jones V. Ober-chain, 10 Grat. 259; Dawson V. Dawson, 1 DeV. Eq. 93, 396; Wall V. Wall, 30 Miss.91; Farrar V. Bridges, 5 Hump. 411.

10 Gould V. Day, 94 U. S. 412; Woodman V. Coolbroth, 7 Me. 181; Brown V.