Case ID: wright_1/html/0647-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      WOOD, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*PEARCE’S ADMINISTRATOR v. BACON.
    Note — bill—dispensing with proof.
    An assignment of an order for a title bond, with a promise in it to pay $200, if the bond was not obtained in sixty days, is not an instrument within the statute dispensing with proof, &c.
    Assumpsit. Bacon held an order on Ward for a title bond for a town lot in Urbana, which he assigned to Pearce in consideration of $200. The assignment had this clause in it: “If I should not procure the bond for a title for the within lot from the director of the town of Urbana within sixty days, then I promise to pay said Pearce the above amount.” Non assumpsit was pleaded without affidavit.
    The plaintiff offered to read the note without proving its execution.
    
      Bacon objected.
    
      Sohenck replied.
   WOOD, J.

The instrument is not one described in the statute-dispensing with proof - in certain cases, and its execution must be-proven, as if the statute had never been enacted.