Case ID: mass_16/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* David Faulkner versus Marshall S. Jones.
    The name of a person subscribed to a promissory note, with intent to attest the signing thereof by the maker, is a sufficient witnessing within the statute of limitations, although there are no words over the. name, indicating the intent of his subscription.
    Assumpsit by the payee, against the maker, of a promissory note, dated March 24th, 1807. Plea of the statute of limitations; with a replication, that the note was a ttested by a subscribing witness; on which issue was joined and tried here at the last November term, before the chief justice. On the production of the note, it appeared that the name of Jona. Getteaux was written upon it, in the place where the name of a witness is usually subscribed ; but there were no words over the name, signifying that it was placed there in attestation of the signing by the promisor. It was objected, that the note was not attested in the sense of the statute. The objection was overruled; and the jury were instructed, that if they believed Getteaux signed his name with intention to attest the making of the note, it was attested within the meaning of the statute; that the affirmative of the issue was for the plaintiff to prove; and unless they were satisfied that the said Getteaux signed his name to the note as a witness, their verdict must be for the defendant. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff; and the cause came up on exceptions filed by the defendant.
    
      Leland, for the plaintiff.
    
      Shaw, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

We are all satisfied that words of attestation, over the signature of a witness to a note or other instrument, are not necessary, to give validity to such instrument, within the exception of the statute of limitations; and that it was rightly left to the jury, that if they believed the signature of the supposed" witness was placed on the note, with intent to attest to the subscription of the maker, it was attested within the meaning of the statute .

Judgment on the verdi + 
      
       [By the statute, 1785, c. 52, § 5, promissory notes, attested by one or more witnesses, are exempted from the operation of this statute of limitations. If the words “ attested by one or more witnesses,” are to be understood in their ordinary legal sense, it should appear from the instrument itself, in writing, that the witness signed as a witness to the executing of the note by the promisor. As to deeds executed in pursuance of a power, it has been held, that if the power, or a consent to the execution of a power, be required to be executed under hand and seal attested by a witness (Wright vs. Wakeford, 17 Ves. 454. —4 Taunt. 213. —Sugd. Pow. Append. No. 6); or if a person having a power be required to exercise it, by any deed or writing under his hand and seal, to be by him duly executed, in the presence of, and to be attested by witnesses (Wright vs. Barlow, 3 M. & S. 512); and the attestation contains the words 
        u sealed and delivered ” only, without the word “ signed,” it is not a valid execution oí the power, although in the body of the deed executing the power, it is stated to be “ under hand and seal, attested by and duly executed in the presence of two credible persons, whose names are thereupon endorsed as witnesses hereto; ” and although the witnesses, after the death of the person, or one of the persons, executing the power, sign a memorandum on the deed certifying that it was signed as well as sealed in their presence. The act 54 Geo. 3, c J53, cured a defective attestation of signature ; but where a power was required to be executed by will, or any writing or appointment in the nature of a will, to be signed and published in the presence of, and attested by two or more credible witnesses, a will signed by the donor and attested thus, “ Witness, A. B. C. D.,” without any attestation of the publication, was held not to be a valid execution of the power, and not within the act. —Moodie vs. Reid, 1 Madd. Rip. 516. —7 Taunt. 355.—So, where the will concluded thus, “ This is my last will, made and signed on the, &c., in the presence of the witnesses.” —Stanhope vs. Keir, 2 Simon & S. 37.—Or if lands be limited to such uses as the donee shall direct, by deed or writing, under his hand and seal, attested by two or more credible witnesses, the power is not effectually executed by a will signed and sealed, but attested by the subscribing witnesses as being signed in their presence, without noticing the sealing ; nor can the defect be cured by calling one of the witnesses to prove that the will was actually sealed in their presence, as well as signed. —Doe dem. Hoskiss vs Pearcey 6 Taunt. 402. —2 Marsh. 102.—Ed.]