Case ID: scl_4/html/0037-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "G'kimke, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1806.
    Gervais v. Baird.
    When the maker of a promissory note signs it with his mark, and there is a name countersigned as subscribing witness, who is not produced to prove the making of the note, at the trial, it shall be sufficient to prove by any witness the defendant’s signature, under the act of 1802.
    Motion for a new trial. Assumpsit on several notes of hand, tried in Abbeville district, before Beevaed, J. The defendant had not subscribed her name, but only her marie to the notes, and the subscribing witness was not produced ; but a witness who was examined, proved that the defendant was accustomed to make her mark jn tke manner ^ Was made on the notes, and said he believed the mark was her’s. This evidence was admitted to go to the jury, who found for the plaintiff. The motion in this court was to set aside the verdict, as having been given without sufficient evidence.
    Lesley, for the defendant; Bowie, for the plaintiff.
   G'kimke, J.,

delivered the unanimous opinion of the court, that by the act of 1802, to prevent'the unnecessary attendance of witnesses, proving the signature of a note is sufficient, without proving it by the subscribing witness, (vide 1 vol. 387,) and although the signature be the mark only of the party, and not the name written, yet, if it is proved to be the signature of the party, it shall be sufficient. But without this proof, the evidence would be insufficient. Proving the handwriting of the subscribing witness would not be sufficient.

New trial refused.

Present, Geimke, Waties, Bay, Teezevant, Beevaed, and Wilds, Justices.