State v. Noe
STATE v. LEVI T. NOE, Et Al.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Avery, J.:
The objection to the jurisdiction and the exception to the ruling of the court in admitting the proof of the incorporation of the insurance companies are fully discussed in State v. Turner, at this term. It is therefore needless to repeat the reasons for holding as we did upon *851 assignments of eiror which are identical with those relied on in this case.
Where the genuineness of the paper or the signature to a paper, which it is proposed to make the basis of a comparison of handwriting, is not denied, or cannot be denied, in the trial of the action, an expert witness may, in the presence of the jury, compare with it another paper or signature whose genuineness is questioned.
Tunstall v. Cobb, 109 N. C., 316 ;
Croom v. Sugg, 110 N. C., 259 ;
State v. DeGraff, 113 N. C., 688 . Under this rule the signature to affidavits or pleadings filed in the cause by a party, or to a paper offered in evidence by the person whose signature is in qnestio'n, and that of a testator to a will purporting to have been signed by him, in an action brought against the executor appointed and qualified thereunder, or a written contract the execution of which by the testator is denied, have been held to be proper standards of comparison to be used by such witnesses in their testimony before the jury.
Tunstall v. Gobb and State v. DeGraff, supra.
The paper writing admitted as a standard of comparison was the bond, constituting a part of the record in the ease, for the appearance of the defendant Eisher to answer this charge. The bond constituted a part of the record, was presumed to be genuine, and a judgment nisi on his default could have beeu rendered against him and his sureties on it, and made final on-his failure to take the burden upon himself and show it spurious on the return of notice to show cause. Until the presumption of its genuineness is satisfactorily rebutted, the signature to it must be treated like that of a party to a pleading in a civil action.
The other exceptions are without merit, and wo must assume were not seriously relied upon. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.