Case ID: scl_3/html/0308-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1803.
    Administratrix of Eaves v. Cantzon.
    Proof of the hand writing of the obligor, and possession by the obligee* are sufficient to authorize a jury to presume the delivery of a sealed note, where there are no subscribing witnesses : and, the words, “ witness my'hand and seal,” together with the signature of the obliyor “'extending over a scroll used in place of a seal, are sufficient to shew that the obligor intended a sealed instrument, and that the seal was not added subsequently.
    Motion for a new trial. The action was debt, and was tried before Brevard, J. in Lancaster district. The specialty declared on, was in the form a promissory note, only concluding with the words “ witness my hand and seal;” and having a scroll instead of a seal: and there was not any name of a witness subscribed. It was objected, at the trial, that the delivery ought to be proved, as well as the signature of the obligor: but the judge suffered it to go to the jury, upon proof of the signature of the obligor. The handwriting of the person who drew the instrument, was also proved, who was dead; and part of the obligor’s name was written 
      $n the seal, or place of the seal. The jury found for the plaintiff.
    The motion, in this court, was argued by Mathis, for the defendant; and Richardson, tor the plaintiff.
    For the defendant, .it' was argued, that it might be productive of great mischief, if such proof of the delivery of deeds were allowed ; for, that a promissory note might be turned into a deed, by the mere attaching of a seal, which would give the creditor a preference to simple contract creditors, where the debtor might be insolvent : also, that bonds are not affected by the limitation act as notes. That the delivery of deeds, is essential to their existence, and to the proof of debts; and ought to be proved by one witness at least. Loffts. Gilb, Evid, 103.
    •Richardson, contra.
    
    The .evidence was properly left to the jury, to presume a delivery, by the obligor, as well as that he Signed and sealed it as his deed. The deed being in the possession ,of the obligee, is proof presumptive of a delivery to him. Esp. 257. Peake’s N. P. 258. 4 T. R. 313 JNIo particular mode of delivery necessary. Suppose the subscribing witnesses are dead ; .or that a fictitious name was set down as a witness. Peake 258. Subscribing witness not necessary to a bond. Hayw. 133. 2 Pall. 96.
   The court were of opinion, that the evidence given at the trial, svas properly allowed to go to the jury, in proof, as well of a delivery, as of the stguing and sealing. The signature of the obligor, after the words, “ witness my hand seal.” must be considered as strong presumptive evidence that the seal was put to the instrument, at the time of the signature. It is also presumptive evidence of a delivery; which is corroborated by the circumstance of the specialty’s being in the possession of the obligee. The argument founded on the danger to be apprehended from adding seals to motes, to give the effect of specialities, cannot apply to this case; because, the words, “ witness my hand and seal,” shew that a seal was intended to be added. And, moreover, the obligor appears to have written part of his name on the scroll, annexed in the place of a seal, after the scroll was made.

potion for 3 new trial discharged,