Case Name: FORD FOR USE OF PATTERSON v. HAFT, COLE AND LINDSAY
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1832-10
Citations: 1 Wright 118
Docket Number: 
Parties: FORD FOR USE OF PATTERSON v. HAFT, COLE AND LINDSAY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
FORD FOR USE OF PATTERSON v. HAFT, COLE AND LINDSAY.
Covenant on a note, signed and sealed as follows:
J. Haet, [seal.]
Cole and Lindsay, [seal.]
Plea — non est factum, without affidavit.
J. Collier, for the plaintiff,
offered to read the note in evidence.
R. Marsh objected, a variance.
The declaration describes the note as sealed with the seals of H., C. & L. by the name and style of C. & L.; the note shows Haft’s seal, and Cole and Lindsay’s seal.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
There is no affidavit to the plea, and if the note is substantially described, it may be read. Though Cole and Lindsay cannot have a common seal, yet each may have used the same seal, and made it his. The note may go in evidence; but whether, unexplained, it will avail the plaintiff, is another question.
The note was then read. A witness was called, who proved the signature of Cole and Lindsay to be the writing of Cole, and his act alone.
The plaintiff rested. The defendant moved for a non suit.
BY THE COURT. The plaintiff cannot recover. He has sued three upon an obligation of two.
Non suit ordered. See Button & Freeman v. Hampson, et al. Ante 94.
[Attaching seal does not vitiate note; Johnson v. Nelson, 3 W. L. M. 306, 310.]