Mark

A sign, traced on paper or parchment, which stands in tbe place of a signature; usually made by persons who cannot write. The use of the mark In ancient times was not 'confined to illiterate persons; among the Saxons the mark of the cross, as an attestation of the good faith of the person signing, was required to be attached to the signature of those who'* could write, as well as to stand in the place of the signature of those who could not write. It was the symbol of an oath. It is most often the sign of the cross, made in a little space left between the Christian name and surname; 2 Bla. Com. 305; Zacharie v. Franklin, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 161, 9 L. Ed. 1035; 2 Ves. Sen. 455; 1 V. A B. 362. Before the reign of Stephen, the cross was used, even by the king, in formal documents, and was even considered more sacred than a seal.

2 Poll. & Maitl. 223.

The word hia is usually written above the mark, and the word m<irk below it; Schoul.

Wills 303, 305.

But it is not essential that these words shall be attached to the mark made or adopted by a person unable to write, in the execution of a deed, as it is Buiiicient if it appears that he in fact made the mark or adopted it; Sellers v. Sellers, 98 N. 0.

13, 3 S. E. 917.

A mark is a signature; Zacharie v. Franklin, 12 Pet. (U.. S.) Foye V. Patch, 182 Mass. 105. And It may be proved as handwriting: by one who has seen the person make his mark; Strong’s Ex’rs V. Brewer, 17 Ala. 706; ITogg v. Dennis, 3 Humph, (Tenn.) 47; Jackson v. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 144, 4 Am. Dec. 330; contra, Shlnkle v. Crock, 17 Pa.:^59. A mark is now held to be a good signature though the p:irty was able to write; 8 Ad. & E. 94; 3 Curt. 752; Jackson v. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 144, 4 Am. Dec. 330; In re Flannery’s Will, 24 Pa. 502; St. Louis Hospital Ass’n v. William’s Adm’r, 19 Mo. 609; Horton v. Johnson, 18 Ga. 396; Upchurch v. Upchurch, 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) 102. The signature of a subscribing witness to a deed may be made by u cross mark; Devereux v. Mc Mahon, 1,02 N. C. 284, 9*8.

E. 635.

It is not necessary that the person executing, if unable to write, touch the pen while the person authorized signs his name; Kennedy V. Graham, 9 Ind. App. 624, 35 N. E. 925, 37 N. E. 25, See Sionatuke. It is considered settled that the fact that a person can write does not invalidate a signature by mark, or where the signer holds the ixjn while it is guided by another; In re Pope’s Will, 139 N. C. 484, 52 S. E. 235, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1193, 111 Am. St. Rep. 813, 4 Ann, Cas. 635; Main v. Ryder, 84 Pa. 217; Stevens v. Vancleave, 4 Wash. C. C. 262, Fed. Cas, No. 13,412; 8 Ad. & El. 94; though a few cases seem to hold otherwise; 6 Notes of Cases 15; but this case is of course disiwsed of by the later decisions under subsequent statutes. Nor is such a signature invalidated by the absence of attestation, though the proof of execution might be thereby made more diiticult; Bickley v. Keenan, 60 Ala. 295; Truman v. Loro’s Lessee, 14 Ohio 8t 144; Frost v. Deering, 21 Me. 156; Tonnele v. Hall, 4 N. Y. 145.

As to signature by mark, generally, see 22