Berg v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 03 May 1892
• Citation: 49 Minn. 420
• Parties: JOHN N. BERG <I>vs.</I> HANS O. PETERSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

49 Minn. 420

JOHN N. BERG vs. HANS O. PETERSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Submitted on briefs April 5, 1892.

Decided May 3, 1892.

Appeal by defendant Hans O. Peterson from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of Minneapolis, Mahoney, J., made March 2, 1892, denying his motion for a new trial.

Action upon a promissory note for $450, dated December 27, 1890, payable to the order of the plaintiff three months thereafter. The defendant by his answer denied that he made, executed, or delivered the note. The action was tried December 24, 1891. A jury was waived. The plaintiff called E. A. Kempe as a witness, and he was sworn and testified that he was paying teller of the Swedish American Bank, and as such had to pass upon the genuineness of the checks presented; that the defendant did business at the bank, drawing checks in his capacity as County Treasurer; that the witness knew his signature, and had examined the note in suit, and was of opinion that the signature to it was the genuine signature of the defendant. This opinion was given under objection by defendant that it was incompetent; that no proper foundation had been laid, or standard of comparison established. The court overruled the objection, and received the evidence. The defendant excepted to the ruling. Other witnesses testified in like manner, under the same objection and exception.

The defendant testified that he never signed the note; never saw it until March, 1891; that it was a forgery. The court found that defendant made and delivered the note, and ordered judgment for plaintiff for the amount of it, with interest and costs. Defendant moved for a new trial, and, being refused, he appealed.

Chas. G. Laybuorn, for appellant.

Ueland & Holt, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The issue on the trial of this cause was the genuineness of defendant's signature to the note in suit.

Aside from the admissions of the writer himself, the genuineness of a disputed handwriting may be proved by the testimony of two classes of witnesses: First, those who are personally acquainted with the handwriting of the person supposed to have written it; second, those who, although wholly unacquainted with the party's handwriting, are competent to testify, by a comparison by juxtaposition, of a writing proved or admitted to be the party's handwriting, with the writing disputed.

Most of the assignments of error proceed upon the erroneous assumption that the witnesses for the plaintiff were of the latter class. Of...