Christman v. Pearson

• Decision Date: 22 January 1897
• Parties: CHRISTMAN ET AL. v. PEARSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

100 Iowa 634

69 N.W. 1055

CHRISTMAN ET AL.

v.PEARSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 22, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Linn county; William G. Thompson, Judge.

The plaintiffs are executors of the estate of John Christman, deceased, and bring suit on four notes. The defense was payment of three of the notes, and denial of the execution of the other. Trial to jury. Verdict and judgment for part of the amount claimed. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.Giffen & Voris, for appellants.

Richard A. Stuart, for appellee.

LADD, J.

The defendant, in his answer, denied the execution of one of the notes sued on. E. H. Crocker, being called as a witness, testified that he was an attorney at law, and had been for 7 or 8 years; that for 15 years past his business had required him to examine handwritings a great deal, and of a great many different people; that he had frequently made comparisons, and often had made discriminations between handwritings, to find out whether the handwriting was that of a certain person. In answer to the question whether he was an expert in judging handwriting, he said that he was not, in the sense of making it his business. He was then asked to state whether, in his opinion, the same person wrote the signature denied and those to the other notes, the execution of which was admitted. The objection that he had not shown himself competent to testify was sustained. This ruling was erroneous. It is not necessary that a witness, in order to give his opinion on comparison of handwritings, should claim to be an expert, or that he possess the highest skill in detecting the differences or similarities in the strokes or curves of the pen. Persons in many different occupations are required to pass upon the genuineness of signatures, and certainly to do so frequently for a period of 15 years by a man of intelligence would somewhat qualify him to give an opinion in making comparisons. The value of the opinion would, of course, be left to the jury. Hyde v. Woolfolk, 1 Iowa, 159.

2. L. B. Christman, while on the stand as a witness, testified that certain payments for which receipts were given were paid on account, and that they balanced account. On cross-examination it appeared that the daybook contained the items referred to, and upon motion of the defendant his testimony was stricken out, on the ground that the daybook was the best evidence. Thereafter the witness was asked whether the payments were applied on the notes or on the...