A deed may be delivered to a stranger, to be by him delivered to the other party to it on the fulfillment of certain conditions, in which case it does not take effect until the condition is fulfilled.35 This is a delivery in escrow, and during this period the deed is termed an "escrow." Immediately upon fulfillment of the conditions, the deed becomes operative, without actual delivery by the depositary.36 To constitute an escrow, the delivery to the depositary must be conditional. If it is merely postponed, the delivery to him is an effective delivery to the grantee or obligee, and not a delivery in escrow.37 A deed thus conditionally delivered must be delivered to a stranger. If it is delivered to the other party, or to his agent, it will take effect at once, in spite of the conditions, on the ground that a delivery in fact outweighs verbal conditions.38

Burnett, 40 Mich. 361. Where a deed is placed in the hands of a depositary to be delivered to the grantee upon the death of the grantor, or at any other time, but the grantor reserves the right and power to recall it at any time, there is no delivery. Cook v. Brown, supra; Stinson v. Anderson, 96 111. 373; Prutsman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 644, 11 Am. Rep. 592; Baker v. Haskell, 47 N. H. 479, 93 Am. Dec. 455; Brown v. Brown, 66 Me. 316; Duer v. James, 42 Md. 492. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 56; Cent. Dig. §§ 117-125.

29 Moore v. Flynn, 135 111. 74, 25 N. E. 844; Mitchell's Lessee v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St 377; Corbett v. Norcross, 35 N. H. 99; Leppoc v. Bank, 32 Md. 136; Comer v. Baldwin, 16 Minn. 172 (Gil. 151); Meigs v. Dexter, 172 Mass. 217, 52 N. E. 75. Third parties may acquire rights by attachment or otherwise at any time before acceptance. Bell v. Bank, 11 Bush (Ky.) 34, 21 Am. Rep. 205; Parmelee v. Simpson, 5 Wall. 81, 18 L. Ed. 542; Day v. Griffith, 15 Iowa, 104. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 64; Cent. Dig. §§ 142-148.

30 Peavey v. Tilton, 18 N. H. 151, 45 Am. Dec. 365; Mitchell's Lessee v. Ityan, 3 Ohio St. 377; Halluck v. Bush, 2 Root (Conn.) 26, 1 Am. Dec. 60; Wall v. Wall, 30 Miss. 91, 64 Am. Dec. 147; Whitney v. Hale, 67 N. H. 385, 30 Atl. 417. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 194; Cent. Dig. § 579.

31 See Leake, Cont 81; Butler and Baker's Case, 3 Coke, 20b; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Ruddell, 53 Ark. 32, 13 S. W. 418; Atwood v. Marshall, 52 Neb. 173, 71 N. W. 1064. And sec cases cited supra, note 27. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 194; Cent. Dig. § 579.

32 Keedy v. Moats, 72 Md. 325, 19 Atl. 965; Dawson v. Hall, 2 Mich. 390; Wood v. Chetwood, 44 N. J. Eq. 64, 14 Atl. 21. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 208; Cent. Dig. §§ 625-652.

32 McMiebael v. Carlyle, 53 Wis. 504, 10 N. W. 556. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-So.) §§ 67, 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 145-148, 291,-308.

34 Faulkner v. Adams, 126 Ind. 459, 26 N. E. 170; Saunders v. Blytbe, 112

There is no delivery, even as an escrow, where the grantor or obligor retains control of the deed with power to withdraw it.89

Upon delivery of an escrow, and performance or happening of the condition, the deed becomes effective from the date of the original delivery; so that, if a bond is delivered as an escrow, and before fulfillment of the condition the obligor and obligee die, yet, on fulfillment of the condition, it becomes an effective bond, and charges the asset's of the deceased obligor.40

Mo. 1, 20 S. W. 319; Smith v. Porter, 10 Gray (Mass.) 66; Battles v. Fobes, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 239. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 194; cent. Dig. § 578.

35 Harkreader v. Clayton, 56 Miss. 383, 31 Am. Rep. 369; Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 2 Mass. 447, 3 Am. Dec. 66; Prutsman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 644, 11 Am. Rep. 592. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 59-61; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-141; "Escrows," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 1; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-5.

36 Prutsman v. Baker, supra; Couch v. Meeker, 2 Conn. 302, 7 Am. Dec. 274; White Star Line Steamboat Co. v. Moragne, 91 Ala. 610, 8 South. 867. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 59-61; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-141; "Escrows" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 12, 13.

37 Martin v. Flaharty, 13 Mont 96, 32 Pac. 287, 19 L. R, A. 242, 40 Am. St. Rep. 415. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 59-61; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-141; "Escrows," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 6; Cent. Dig. § 8.

38 Co. Litt. 36a; Dawson v. Hall, 2 Mich. 390; Fairbanks v. Metcalf, 8 Mass. 230; Foley v. Cowgill, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 18. 32 Am. Dec. 49; Stevenson v. Crapnell, 114 111. 19, 28 N. E. 379; Miller v. Fletcher, 27'Grat. (Va.) 403, 21 Am. Rep. 356; Braman v. Bingham, 26 N. Y. 483; Cocks v. Barker, 49 N. Y. 110; Graves v. Tucker, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 9; Ordinary of State v. Thatcher, 41 N. J. Law, 403, 32 Am. Rep. 225; Gibson v. Partee, 19 N. C. 530; Williams v. Higgins, 69 Ala. 517; Richmond v. Morford, 4 Wash. 337, 30 Pac. 241, 31 Pac. 513; Hubbard v. Greeley, 84 Me. 340, 24 Atl. 799, 17 L. R. A. 511; Campbell v. Jones, 52 Ark 493, 12 S. W. 1016, 6 L. R. A. 783; Dixon v. Bank, 102 Ga. 461, 31 S. E. 96, 66 Am. St. Rep. 193.

In New York it has recently been held that the rule does not apply when the instrument does not relate to real estate, at least where it does not require a seal for its validity. Blewitt v. Boorum, 142 N. Y. 357, 37 N. E. 119, 40 Am. St. Rep. 600. Quaere, whether the rule still prevails in England. Anson, Cont. (8th Ed.) 53; Hudson v. Revett, 5 Bing. 368, 387. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 59-61; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-141; "Escrows;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. § 7.

39 Prutsman v. Baker, supra; Campbell v. Thomas, 42 Wis. 437, 24 Am. Rep. 427; Brown v. Brown, 66 Me. 316. See "Deeds," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 59-61; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-141; "Escrows," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. § 7.

Execution In Blank

A deed executed in blank - that is, completely sealed and delivered, with an omission of a material particular - is void, and cannot be made good by subsequently filling in the blank without a re-execution, or what is equivalent thereto.*1