not a necessary allegation by the plaintiff, as the law would presume a time offer to continue until the time expires, and it is not necessary in pleading to allege what the law will presume; and if the offer had been revoked, this was a matter to be alleged and proved by the defendant. See Langdell, Summary of Law of Contracts, Sec. 182.
What is a sealed instrument now in Virginia? For the requisites of a seal at common law, see Clark 52-53, citing Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 546, holding that it is sufficient if an impression is made on the paper itself on which the instrument is written, without the intervention of wax or wafer. And see Jacksonville, etc., R. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514, which seems to decide that, even in the absence of statute, a scroll may be a sufficient seal, if it be so intended.
In Virginia it is enacted (Code Va., Sec. 2841) as follows: "Any writing to which a natural person making it shall affix a scroll by way of seal shall be of the same force as if it were actually sealed. The impression of a corporate or official seal on paper or parchment alone, shall be as valid as if made on wax or other adhesive substance."
Under this statute, the question arises, When is a scroll affixed "by way of seal"? As to writings under seal for the payment of money (i e., bonds and covenants as distinguished from deeds of conveyance of land) it is the established doctrine in Virginia that the scroll is not affixed by way of seal unless it be acknowledged as a seal in the body of the instrument. Thus in the case of Clegg v. Lemessurier, 15 Gratt. 108, it was held that a writing for the payment of money, or other purpose for which a deed is not required, though it has a scroll at the foot thereof with the word seal written therein, still cannot be considered in Virginia a sealed instrument, if there be no recognition of the scroll as a seal in the body of the instrument, the word "seal" written in the scroll not being in the body of the instrument. This recognition is usually by the words "Witness my hand and seal," above the signature, and thus in the body of the instrument. And it is held that, in the absence of these words, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that in fact the scroll was affixed by way of seal. Clegg v. Lemes-
