Case ID: va_69/html/0199-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moncure, P.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Lewis’ Ex’ors v. Overby’s Adm’or.
    March Term, 1877,
    Richmond.
    Sealed Instruments. — A paper which in the body of it says, “as witness my hand and seal,” has the word “seal” affixed to the signature of the maker. It is a sealed instrument within the meaning of the statute. Code of 1849. ch. 143, s. 2, p. 580.
    This was an action of debt in the circuit court of Mecklenburg county, brought by Robert Y. Overby’s executors, and after-wards revived in the name of his administrator de bonis non, &c., against the executors of John Lewis. The plaintiffs declared upon a writing obligatory for $1,800, executed by John Lewis and James E. Has-kins. The defendants filed the pleas of “payment,” and "non est factum."
    
    The paper declared on was as follows:
    Dolls. $1800. On demand with interest from the first of April next, we promise and bind ourselves, heirs, &c., to pay to Rob’t Y. Overby eighteen hundred dollars, for value received. As witness our hands and seals this 24th day of March. 1853.
    Jas. E. Haskins, Seal.
    
    Jno. Lewis, Seal.
    
    On the trial of the cause the defendants objected to the introduction of this paper, because it had no scrolls by way of seals affixed opposite to the signatures with which the paper writing is subscribed; and ''therefore was not a writing obligatory within the meaning of the law of Virginia. But the court overruled the objection, and admitted the paper as evidence; and the defendants excepted. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; and thereupon the defendant applied to one of the judges of this court for a supersedeas; which was awarded.
    
      Jones & Bouldin, for the appellants.
    
      Jno. A. <5* Alex. Coke, for the appellees.
    
      
      Sealed Instrumeaits. — See Dinwiddle County v. Stuart, Buchanan & Co., 28 Gratt. 526, and note; [ Bartons’ Law Pr. (2nd Ed.) 95.
    
   Moncure, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court is of opinion that the word “seal” has the same force and effect as a “scroll” in the true intent and meaning of the Code, which declares, that “any writing to which the person making it shall affix a scroll by way of seal, shall be of the same force as if it were actually sealed.” Code of 1849, ch. 143, § 2, p. 580. And the persons making the writing on which this action is founded, having severally annexed to their names subscribed to the said writing the said word “seal;” and having clearly indicated in the body of the said writing, their intention to make it a sealed instrument, by using therein the words: “sis witness our hands and seals.” &c.; the court is of opinion that the said writing is a sealed instrument accordingly. See 2 Rob. Pract., ch. 1, pp. 2-8, and cases therein cited.

Therefore it is considered by the court that there is no error in the said judgment; that the same be affirmed; and that the plaintiffs in error, John T. Lewis and Richard B. Lewis, executors of John Lewis, out of the estate of their said testator in their hands to be administered, *do pay to John A. Coke administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Robert Y. Overby, dec’d, damages according to law and his costs by him about his defence in this court expended.

Which is ordered to be certified to the circuit court of Mecklenburg.

Judgment affirmed.