Case Name: Pearson &. Co. vs. McDaniel
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1878-08
Citations: 62 Ga. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pearson &. Co. vs. McDaniel.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Pearson &. Co. vs. McDaniel.
1. Where a witness testifies that from, business correspondence he is acquainted with the handwriting of the writer of a letter received by due course of mail, such testimony is enough to carry the letter to the jury as evidence, and the court was right to admit it.
2. The verdict is sustained by the testimony.
Evidence. New trial. Before Judge Hillyer. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1877.
McDaniel sued out an attachment against Pearson & Co. for the purchase money of eggs shipped by him to them at New York. On the trial, the condition of the eggs was a disputed question. Plaintiff tendered in evidence a letter from defendants acknowledging the receipt of the eggs in apparent good order ; the basis of its admission was plaintiff’s evidence that he never saw defendants sign their names, or heard them acknowledge this signature, but that he was acquainted with their handwriting from previous business correspondence with them, and from this knowledge the letter was in their handwriting. It was admitted, and this was the main ground of exception.
McConnell & Heyward, for plaintiffs in error,
cited 2 Stark, on Ev., 372; 21 E. C. L., 709 ; 2 Phil, on Ev., 599, 692; Code, §3840.
W. R. Brown, for defendant,
cited Code, §3839 ; 30 Ga., 476; 39 75., 545 ; 1 Gr. on Ev., §§40,577, and note. Yer-dict right, 42 Ga., 244; 48 75., 839; 57 75., 596.

Opinion:
Jackson, Justice.
But two points are made in this record.
First, it is said that the letters were improperly admitted. We think not. Proof was made that from correspondence with the firm the witness was acquainted with the handwriting, and that the letters were theirs, received by due course of mail. This was enough to admit them. See Code, §3833; 30 Ga., 476; 39 Ga., 545, cited by defendant in error.
Secondly, that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence. We agree with the presiding judge that it is not, and affirm the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.