Case ID: nc_1/html/0017-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lord Kenyon.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GRELLIER versus NEALE and Others.
    
      Peake, 146.
    TO prove a partnerlhip deed, the plaintiff’s counsel called the subscribing witness, who said the did not see the deed executed; but that William Neale brought it to her, and desired her to put her name thereto as a subscribing witness, which she did: none of the other defendants being present. The plaintiff's counsel then offered to call witnesses to prove the hand-writing of the other defendants, which the defendants’ counsel objected to; contending that as it was a deed under seal, bare proof of the hand-writing was not sufficient, but a sealing and delivery must be proved.
   Lord Kenyon.

The subscribing witness not having seen the deed executed, it is the same as if there was no witness at all; and in that case the hand-writing may be proved by another witness. As to the objection that the sealing and delivery ought to be proved, I am clearly of opinion, that if the signature is proved to be the defendant's hand-writing, we ought to presume that it was sealed and delivered.