Morrison v. Porter

• Decision Date: 13 July 1886
• Citation: 35 Minn. 425,29 N.W. 54
• Parties: MORRISON v PORTER AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

35 Minn. 425

29 N.W. 54

MORRISONvPORTER AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 13, 1886.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Hennepin county, denying plaintiff's motion to set aside decision.

P. M. Babcock, for appellant, Ruth E. Morrison.

R. G. Evans and John D. Howe, for respondents, Henry H. Porter and another.

DICKINSON, J.

The defendant the railroad corporation has title to the land in controversy through a chain of conveyances running back to the plaintiff, if in fact the plaintiff executed a certain deed of conveyance in the year 1860, the execution of which the plaintiff disputes. The court found that it had been executed by her. The first point to be considered arises upon the admission in evidence of an instrument (Exhibit Y) containing a signature of the plaintiff admitted to be genuine, to enable a comparison to be made between that signature and the disputed signature in issue, Exhibit Y being not otherwise relevant to the issue. Expert witnesses were allowed to give their opinions, based upon such comparison. Upon the question thus presented, as to whether a writing, admitted to be in the hand of the person whose signature is in issue, may be received in evidence for the purpose of comparison, the authorities are so at variance that we are at liberty to adopt the rule of evidence which seems to be most consistent with reason, and conducive to the best results. At common law, and generally in the United States, it has been the rule that where other writings, admitted to be genuine, are already in evidence for other purposes in the case, comparison may be made between such writings and the instrument in question. If such a comparison is conducive to the ends of truth, and is allowable, there would seem to be but little reason for refusing to allow a comparison with other writings admitted to be genuine, although not in evidence for other purposes.

The objections which have been urged to receiving other instruments, for the purpose of comparison, have been the multiplying of collateral issues; the danger of fraud or unfairness in selecting instruments for that purpose, from the fact that handwriting is not always the same, and is affected by age, and by the various circumstances which may attend the writing; and the surprise to which a party against whom such evidence is produced may be subjected. When the writings presented are admitted to be genuine, so that collateral issues are not likely to arise, nor the adverse party to be surprised by evidence which he is unable to meet, these objections seem to us to be insufficient as reasons for excluding the evidence. If such evidence has apparent and direct probative force, it should not be excluded unless for substantial reasons. In general, and from necessity, the authenticity of handwriting must be subject to proof by comparison of some sort, or by testimony which is based upon comparison, between the writing in question and that which is in some manner recognized or shown to be genuine. This is everywhere allowed, through the opinions of witnesses who have acquired a knowledge, more or less complete, of the...