Springer v. Hall

• Decision Date: 31 October 1884
• Citation: 83 Mo. 693
• Parties: SPRINGER, Plaintiff in Error, v. HALL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

83 Mo. 693

SPRINGER, Plaintiff in Error,

v.HALL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court.--HON. JOS. CRAVENS, Judge.

REVERSED.

Ed. Buler for plaintiff in error.

(1) The general doctrine is that neither the court nor jury may determine the genuineness of a signature by comparing it with other handwriting of a party. Moore v. United States, 1 Otto 273; Baker v. Harnes, 6 Wharton (Pa.) 284; Lodge v. Pipher, 11 Serg. and Rawle 333; People v. Spooner, 1 Dennis 340; Wilson v. Kirkland, 5 Hill 182; Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wallace 321; State v. Scott, 45 Mo. 304; State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380. (2) The testimony admitted in this case does not come within any of the exceptions recognized by the authorities. 1 Greenleaf Evidence (13 Ed.) sec. 581, and note 4 to page 627. (3) The Supreme Court of this state has never gone beyond the rule laid down in Greenleaf, supra, and has expressly declared that it is not disposed to extend its operation. State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 385. (4) To warrant testimony from comparison of the signature in controversy with other signatures, admitted or proved to be genuine, the genuine signature must have been written before the controversy arose. 1 Greenleaf Evidence (13 Ed.) page 627, note 4, page 628, note 3; King v. Donahue, 110 Mass. 155; Keath v. Lathrop, 10 Cush. 453; Stranger v. Searl, 1 Esp. R. 14; 2 Taylor on Ev., sec. 1872; King v. Donahue, 110 Mass. 155.

Joseph Cravens for respondent.

The lower court did not err in permitting the witnesses to examine the genuine signature of the defendant to his affidavit, and compare it with the signature to the note and in submitting the genuine signature to the affidavit, and the one appended to the note, to the jury for their examination and comparison. 1 Greenleaf Ev., §§ 576, 581. When the signature used as a standard is found to be genuine, or established by the most satisfactory evidence, or by clear and undisputed proof, all the authorities agree that such standard and the disputed signature may be submitted to the jury for comparison. In this case the standard signature was appended to a pleading in the cause, sworn to by the defendant, the genuineness of which was not questioned. In this there was no error. Eborn v. Zimpelman, 5 Cen. Law Journal, p. 207 and authorities cited; Moore v. U. S., 1 Otto 270.

EWING, C.

Suit on a negotiable note alleged to have been made by defendant to the order of S. D. Cox and by him endorsed to plaintiff. Answer non est factum. The defendant signed and swore to his answer. Plaintiff introduced the payee and endorser, Cox, as a witness who testified to the making and delivery of the note to him. Then read the note in evidence, and offered other evidence tending to show admissions of the defendant.

Defendant as a witness in his own behalf testified that he did not sign the note. Defendant then introduced one Napton as a witness who stated that he was engaged in an occupation requiring more or less acquaintance with and examination of the handwriting of different persons, but had never seen the defendant write and was not acquainted with his handwriting. Defendant then offered to exhibit to the witness the answer of defendant to which was attached the sworn signature of the defendant, to have the witness compare the signature to the affidavit and answer, with the signature to the note in controversy, and state as an expert whether the two signatures were made by the same person. The witness stated that they were not made by the same person, and that the note was not signed by the defendant. To this the plaintiff objected. The defendant then offered to submit the answer of the defendant bearing his sworn signature, and the note sued on to the jury that they might compare the signatures, with a view of forming an opinion of the genuineness of the signature to the note. This was permitted, against the objections of the plaintiff. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant and the case is here for review.

I. The only questions for consideration are: 1st. Did the lower court err in permitting the witnesses to examine the genuine signature of the defendant to his affidavit, and compare it with the signature to the note? 2nd. Did the court err in submitting the genuine signature to the affidavit, and the one appended to the note, the jury for their examination and comparison?

All evidence of the genuineness of handwriting, must in the nature of the thing be by comparison, except in cases where the witness saw the document written. The admissibility of some evidence of this kind is well-established. The knowledge of the handwriting of another may be derived from seeing him write; or from seeing letters and other documents purporting to be in the handwriting of the party, who afterwards acted upon them as his own, and adopted them in business transactions as genuine. 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 577. But it has, also, been held that where other writings admitted to be genuine are already in the case, experts may be permitted to compare them with the instrument in question, and testify their opinion concerning the genuineness of the writing. And in such case also, the two writings may be submitted to the jury and compared by them with or without the aid of experts. 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 578.

In Moore v. United States, 1 Otto 270, it was said: “The only question of importance is whether the signature to the document * * * purporting to be executed by the claimant, was properly proved. The court compared it with his signature to another paper in evidence for other...