Case ID: monaghan_1/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Graham v. Spang et al.
    In an action to recover the amount of a bank deposit, the defendant bank offered a promissory note given by the plaintiff as an offset. Its admission in evidence was objected to because the words “ with interest ” appeared as an interlineation. Defendant then called a witness who testified that the plaintiff admitted, at a former trial, the execution of the note; that the note had not been changed since; and then renewed the offer. Admitted. Held, not to be error.
    ■ An expert’s testimony may be admitted, in such case, to prove that an interlineation in a note and the signature are in the same hand-writing.
    Oct. 22, 1888.
    Error, No. 260, Oct. T. 1887, to C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., to review a judgment for plaintiff in an action oi assumpsit, at July T. 1884, No. 115. Clark, J., absent.
    This action was brought by R. T. Graham against C. H. Spang and others, co-partners under the name of Farmers1 and Mechanics .Bank of Sharpsburg, to recover a balance due on money deposited. At the trial, before White, J., the amount of the deposit was admitted but payment was resisted on the ground that plaintiff was indebted to the bank on a note to an amount nearly equal to the deposit. It is stated in the paper book of plaintiff in error that, at á former trial of the same case, the contest turned wholly upon the question of consideration, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for his full claim. The first offer of evidence in the present trial is stated as follows, in the first assignment of error:
    “ Defendant’s counsel offered in evidence note to the order of H. F. Dunham, Treasurer of Grace Church, for $500, with interest, dated April 6, 1877, at one year after date, signed by'E. E. Graham and R. T. Graham, and endorsed by H. F. Dunham, Treasurer.
    ££ Objected to, because it contains on its face a manifest alteration and interlineation, the words £ with interest ’ being added.
    
      “W. A. Lewis, Esq., having been called and examined as a witness, and having sworn that the note had not been changed since former trial, and that it was offered in evidence then without objection, defendant’s counsel renewed offer of note; plaintiff’s counsel renewed objection. Objection overruled, and bill sealed.” [1.]
    The testimony of Lewis, in full, was as follows:
    “ Q. State whether or not you were in court at the former trial of this case, January, a year ago? A. Yes, sir. Q. State whether or not that note was produced at that time ? A. It was. Q. State where that note has been since the time of that trial ? A. In the vault in my office. Q. Has there been any change made in the note? A. None whatever. Q. State whether or not the words ‘with interest’ were in there at the time of the former trial? A. They were; the note is the same. Q. State whether or not that note in its present condition was presented to Mr. Graham; and whether or not he was examined as to the execution of it ? A. He was; he admitted the execution of that note at the former trial. Q. Was the note before him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. In its present condition? A. Yes, sir; the same as it is now. Q. He testified generally as to the note? A. Yes, sir; said he had given the note, what he had given it for, &c.” No cross-examination.
    In rebuttal, plaintiff testified that the words “with interest” were not in the note when he signed it, and that he did not know in whose hand-writing they were. He also testified that, at the former trial, he did not examine the note further than to look at the signature, that he first knew of the words “ with interest ” when the note was read in the present trial. His son, who was also on the note, testified that all the written parts of the note were in his, the son’s, hand-writing, that the words “ with interest ” were not, and he did not know in whose hand-writing they were.
    In sur-rebuttal, defendants called an expert who testified that the filling in of the note was not all in the same hand-writing, and that the words “ with interest ” were not in the same hand-writing or the same ink as the other parts of the filling in, but were in the same hand-writing and ink as the signature R.. T. Graham.
    Defendants’ counsel then offered in evidence the bank book of the plaintiff, for the purpose of showing the time and the amount of charge of said note, showing that it was between the dates May 6th and July 19th, 1879.
    . The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff for the amount of the deposit, less the amount of the note.
    
      The assignments of error specified the action of the court, 1, in admitting the note in evidence, the assignment being in the form as given above; 2, “ in receiving expert testimony as to the interlineation without first requiring evidence to show that the interlineation or alteration was made before signing or with the consent of the plaintiff;” 3, “ in permitting an expert to testify as to his conclusions resulting from a comparison of hand-writing;” and, 4, “in allowing the testimony of an expert witness to be received as evidence in chief.”
    
      A. M. Brown, with him J. McF. Carpenter, for plaintiff in error.
    It was error to admit the opinion of the expert. The comparison should have been made by the jury alone. Travis v. Brown, 43 Pa. 11; Farmers’ Bank v. Whitehill, 10 S. & R. 110; Lodge v. Pipher, 11 S. & R. 334; Bank of Penna. v. Jacobs, 1 P. & W. 178; Fuller v. Hood, 34 Pa. 366.
    Comparison of handwriting alone is not evidence, and is not allowed as independent proof. Vickroy v. Skelly, 14 S. & R. 372; Haycock v. Greup, 57 Pa. 441; Aumick v. Mitchell, 82 Pa. 212; Berryhill v. Kirchner, 96 Pa. 489.
    Reese v. Reese, 90 Pa. 89, is not authority for the proposition that it is competent for an expert to compare one handwriting with another, or one part of a writing confessedly different from the main body of the instrument with another part of the same writing, and then give the result or conclusion reached by him as evidence in chief; and that such evidence is sufficient to overcome the positive oaths of the only persons who testify from actual knowledge.
    
      S. A. McClung, with him John D. Shafer and W. A. Lewis, for defendants in error.
    As there was evidence that plaintiff had acknowledged the note as genuine and as the bank book was offered in evidence, the expert’s testimony was not independent proof.
    The testimony of experts is receivable in corroboration of positive evidence to prove that, in their opinion, the whole of an instrument was written by the same hand, with the same pen and ink and at the same time. Fulton v. Hood, 34 Pa. 365; Burkholder v. Plant, 69 Pa. 225.
    After direct evidence has been given as to the genuineness of writings, the testimony of experts is admissible either to attack or support the instrument. Ballentine v. White, 77 Pa. 20.
    Where it is alleged and denied that the body and signature of an instrument are in the same handwriting, an expert may be asked whether, in his opinion, the two parts were written by the same person. Reese v. Reese, 90 Pa. 89.
    In Berryhill v. Kirchner, 96 Pa. 489, Ballentine v. White and Reese v. Reese, are recognized as authority and distinguished from the case in hand.
    Nov. 9, 1888.
   Per Curiam,

The evidence, the admission of which is complained of in the first assignment of error, was rightly admitted. It is true, the note, on its face, showed a manifest interlineation, but the proof that it had been admitted on the former trial without objection, was sufficient to warrant its reception as prima facie evidence.

The exception to the opinion of the expert was not well taken. The case on which he was called to pass was not one of a comparison of separate writings, but one involving a comparison of part of the writing in the note with the signature; this was a proper subject for his opinion. Rees v. Rees, 90 Pa. 189.

The judgment is affirmed. A. B. W.-