Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 S.C.L. 448

Tuten v. Stone

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided January 15, 1860

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1860-01-15

The report of his Honor, the*presiding Judge, is as follows: “ This was a sum. pro. on a note made by another and the defendant.(a) The subscribing witness proved that he saw the first maker sign the note, but that Stone was not then present. Jt was then proposed to prove Stone’s signature by other proof. It was objected that this could not be done, inasmuch as the subscribing witness had failed to prove it, and the defendant had denied the signature on oath.

Decided 1860-01-15

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, C. J.

¶2This Court concurs in the ruling of the Judge below. This note is not a joint, nor a joint and several one. It is several, signed according to the proof, at different times. The witness, Gaudon, saw Jones sign. Stone was not present. The case stood as to him, as if there had been no subscribing witness to the paper. The *450Act of 1802 had no application under such circumstances. His signature was therefore to be proved by the ordinary evidence of handwriting. One witness, who said he knew the defendant’s handwriting, said he believed the signature to be his. Three witnesses said they knew his handwriting and did not believe the signature to be his. This conflicting proof made a case of doubt, in which it was admissible to resort to the comparison of handwriting. Genuine signatures were produced; on comparing them with the signature in question, it was plain that the plaintiff’s witness was right. • The decision of the judge on a process is like the verdict of a jury; when there is conflicting proof, the decision, like the verdict, must stand.

¶3The motion for a new trial is dismissed.

Johnston and Wardlaw, JJ., concurred.

¶4Motion dismissed.

/46/scl/448 · .json · Public domain