Case Name: Richard Yarborough v. Stephen Monday
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1830-12
Citations: 2 Dev. 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard Yarborough v. Stephen Monday,
Judges: Ham, Judge, concurred.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 493–496

Head Matter:
Richard Yarborough v. Stephen Monday,
From Person.
Dec. 1830.
Where an instrument is signed by two versons, and but one seal is affl'ttd, orcl nardy it is to be talc n as the deed of that .¡arty • nly whose name is written near st to it. Bu’ it may he show by /.roof*, eith r on the face of, or dehors the instrument, that the other party adopted the seal.
This was an action of assumpsit upon a written instrument in form of an indenture of apprenticeship It was signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant. Th« re was but one seal to the instrument, which was placed over the name of the Plaintiff, his signature being the first.— Upon the opening of the case, his Honor Judge Strange, thinking that an action of assumpsit could not he sustained on the instrument, nonsuited the Plaintiff, who appealed to this Court.
Winston, for the Plaintiff,
cited Warner v. Lunch f5 John. Rep. 239) Jervis v. Lockwood (1 Washington 42). Austin v. Whitlock (1 Mum. 487). Ball v. Sinister-ville (4 Term Rep. 313).
No Counsel appeared for the Defendant.

Opinion:
Ruffin, Judge.
The nonsuit, I think, was premature, I understand it to have been ordered upon the production of the instrument, and before proof by the Plaintiff that the Defendant had not sealed it. I do not doubt, that more than one person may adopt the same seal.— But that is to be shown by evidence. Upon the face of the paper, the seal is to be taken as that of the person whose name is next to, or written to it. Such is the course of business. But yet the Defendant might show that it was h*s, and the Plaintiff might rebut that by other evidence. In which event, it would be a case for the jury» But I understand the record to state in effect, that the Court ruled upon the face of (be paper in exrlusionof all evidence. I do not concur in that, because I conceive it was a simple contract or a deed, as (he Defendant did or did not adopt the seal at the time of executing. Unless he acknowledged it as his seal, it. was not his seal. It may be that it was executed by ¡he parties at different, times. The seal may have been affixed after (he first signature; when clearly it would ho that of the party making it. Or one may have affixed it, and ¡he other afterwards signed. It seems, to me, that in such case a mere signature is not to be taken as a sealing, unless (he party declare the seal already made to be his own.
Ham, Judge, concurred.