Case Name: SAUVE vs. DAWSON
Court: Superior Court of Louisiana
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1812
Citations: 2 Mart. (o.s.) 202
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAUVE vs. DAWSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Martin (Louisiana Term Reports)
Volume: 2
Pages: 202–204

Head Matter:
SAUVE vs. DAWSON.
Note to be proved by the report of exports. Appeal bond a good piece of comparison.
~Smith, for the plaintiff,
offered to prove a pro~ missory note of the defendant, by the introduction of a witness ready to testify to his acquaintance with his hand-wiiting, and to his belief that the signature at the bottom of the note, was in. his hand-writing.
Hennen, for the defendant.
This mode of proof is not to be resorted to. The note is denied, and the Civil Code (p. 306, art. 226) provides that “ in case the party disavows his signature, proof “ of it may be given under oath or affirmation, “ by at least one credible witness, declaring posi- " tively that he knows the signature, as having “ seen the obligation signed by the person from “ payment is demanded, and if there be no such " deposition, the signature of the person must be “ ascertained by two persons having skill to judge “ of hand-writing, appointed by the judge before “ whom the cause is pending, which two persons “ shall report on oath, whether the signature ap- “ pears to them to be that of the person, whose it “ is alledged to be, on their having compared it “ with papers acknowledged to have been signed “ by him.”
Smith, contra.
This is a commercial instrument, the proof of which isnot to be regulated by the genera1 law. Papers of this kind are very seldom attested by a subscribing witness. The llro-visions of the Civil Cdde do not controul the esta-bushed law and usages of commerce, p. 470, art. 74, and this is the best evidence the nature ofthe case admits.
By the court. The part of the Civil Code invoked by the plaintiff's counsel; is expressly confined to claims on the thing sold. The evidence which we must require, is that which the legislature has pointed out, even when in our opinion. it appears weaker than that which is offered.
Witness refected.
Smith
then offered the appeal bong, executed by the defendant, as a piece of comparison.
Hennen, contra.
It has a subscribing witness, and before it be used, that witness must be bro't to prove it.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The bond having been filed in the office by the appellant, has become a matter of record, and cannot be denied.
The note was accordingly proven by a comparison with the signature at the bottom of the appeal bond.