Case ID: wright_1/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MICHENOR v. KINNEY.
    Seal — scrawl, wafer, wax — sealed obligation without a testatum clause.
    A note with a scrawl or seal of wax, although without a testatum clause describing it as under seal, is a sealed note.
    The statute places the scrawl on the same footing with a seal of wax or a wafer.
    Debt. The obligation exhibited was a note for money with a scrawl in the place of a seal affixed, but no mention was made of a seal in the note. The question is whether the note can be recovered upon as a sealed note.
    
   BY THE COURT.

The case of Howe v. Dawson, Tappan, 169, decides the precise point before us; and it is said, the same point has been repeatedly decided by this court, though we have no reported case. Suppose there was a seal of wax instead of a scrawl, would not the instrument be sealed ? Our law puts the scrawl upon the same footing as the wax seal.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

[Note with scrawl is sealed note, followed; Osborn v. Kistler, 35 O. S. 90, 101.]