Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1220 — NE Code / Chapter 25 / Section 25-1220
View Statute 25-1220
Status: in_force

Evidence respecting handwriting may be given by comparisons made, by experts or by the jury, with writing of the same person which is proved to be genuine.

R.S.1867, Code § 344, p. 451;

R.S.1913, § 7912;

C.S.1922, § 8854;

C.S.1929, § 20-1220;

R.S.1943, § 25-1220.

1. Comparison

1. Comparison

2. Miscellaneous

2. Miscellaneous

1. Comparison

1. Comparison

This section permits comparisons between known genuine writing and the disputed writing to be made by a jury either with or without the aid of experts. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Nielsen, 222 Neb. 92, 382 N.W.2d 328 (1986).

This section permits comparisons between known genuine writing and the disputed writing to be made by a jury either with or without the aid of experts. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Nielsen, 222 Neb. 92, 382 N.W.2d 328 (1986).

In case tried to judge, handwriting may be compared by him with genuine writing of the same person. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Cutright, 189 Neb. 805, 205 N.W.2d 542 (1973).

In case tried to judge, handwriting may be compared by him with genuine writing of the same person. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Cutright, 189 Neb. 805, 205 N.W.2d 542 (1973).

Court may admit writings made during progress of trial as a basis for comparison. In re Estate of Husa, 121 Neb. 67, 236 N.W. 177 (1931).

Court may admit writings made during progress of trial as a basis for comparison. In re Estate of Husa, 121 Neb. 67, 236 N.W. 177 (1931).

Expert testimony of handwriting based wholly on comparison of hands is in nature of circumstantial evidence. Wakeley v. State, 118 Neb. 346, 225 N.W. 42 (1929).

Expert testimony of handwriting based wholly on comparison of hands is in nature of circumstantial evidence. Wakeley v. State, 118 Neb. 346, 225 N.W. 42 (1929).

Instrument and signature introduced in evidence was sufficient basis for comparison with signature in question. Harrington v. Vogle, 103 Neb. 677, 173 N.W. 699 (1919).

Instrument and signature introduced in evidence was sufficient basis for comparison with signature in question. Harrington v. Vogle, 103 Neb. 677, 173 N.W. 699 (1919).

Where execution of contract was denied, introduction of genuine signatures of deceased in evidence for comparison raised question of fact for jury. Wells v. Cochran, 78 Neb. 612, 111 N.W. 381 (1907).

Where execution of contract was denied, introduction of genuine signatures of deceased in evidence for comparison raised question of fact for jury. Wells v. Cochran, 78 Neb. 612, 111 N.W. 381 (1907).

Proved genuine writings should be admitted in evidence for the purpose of permitting the jury as well as experts to make the necessary comparison. First Nat. Bank of Madison v. Carson, 48 Neb. 763, 67 N.W. 779 (1896).

Proved genuine writings should be admitted in evidence for the purpose of permitting the jury as well as experts to make the necessary comparison. First Nat. Bank of Madison v. Carson, 48 Neb. 763, 67 N.W. 779 (1896).

Comparison may be made by experts or by jury. Grand Island Banking Co. v. Shoemaker, 31 Neb. 124, 47 N.W. 696 (1891).

Comparison may be made by experts or by jury. Grand Island Banking Co. v. Shoemaker, 31 Neb. 124, 47 N.W. 696 (1891).

Only genuine signature admitted or proven can be submitted to jury for comparison with disputed writings. Link v. Reeves, 3 Neb. Unof. 383, 91 N.W. 506 (1902).

Only genuine signature admitted or proven can be submitted to jury for comparison with disputed writings. Link v. Reeves, 3 Neb. Unof. 383, 91 N.W. 506 (1902).

2. Miscellaneous

2. Miscellaneous

Opinion of handwriting experts on issue of forgery in civil action may be used to contradict testimony of witnesses who saw note executed, and may be sufficient to overturn same. Bank of Commerce of Louisville v. McCarty, 119 Neb. 795, 231 N.W. 34 (1930).

Opinion of handwriting experts on issue of forgery in civil action may be used to contradict testimony of witnesses who saw note executed, and may be sufficient to overturn same. Bank of Commerce of Louisville v. McCarty, 119 Neb. 795, 231 N.W. 34 (1930).

Refusal to permit cross-examination of expert on handwriting was not prejudicial. Schreiner v. Shanahan, 105 Neb. 525, 181 N.W. 536 (1921).

Refusal to permit cross-examination of expert on handwriting was not prejudicial. Schreiner v. Shanahan, 105 Neb. 525, 181 N.W. 536 (1921).

One familiar with handwriting of party denying alleged signature is competent to give opinion. First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Lierman, 5 Neb. 247 (1876).

One familiar with handwriting of party denying alleged signature is competent to give opinion. First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Lierman, 5 Neb. 247 (1876).