Case Name: MICHENOR v. KINNEY
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-10
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 459
Docket Number: 
Parties: MICHENOR v. KINNEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
MICHENOR v. KINNEY.
Seal — scrawl, wafer, wax — sealed obligation without a testatum clause.
A note with a scrawl or seal of wax, although without a testatum clause describing it as under seal, is a sealed note.
The statute places the scrawl on the same footing with a'seal of wax or a wafer.
Debt. The obligation exhibited was a note for money with a scrawl in the place of a seal affixed, but no mention was made of a seal in the note. The question is whether the note can be recovered upon as a sealed note.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The case of Howe v. Dawson, Tap. R. 169, decides the precise point before us; and it is said, the same point has been repeatedly decided by this Court, though we have no reported case. Suppose there was a seal of wax instead of a scrawl, would not the instrument be sealed? Our law puts the scrawl upon the same footing as the wax seal.
Judgment for the plaintiff.