Hall v. Huse

Notwithstanding evidence of the promisor’s acknowledgment of his signature to a promissory note, he was admitted to produce evidence of persons acquainted with his hand-writing, in whose opinion the signature was not genuine, and also to prove the same by signatures known to be his; and he having obtained a verdict upon this evidence, a new trial was refused.

Assumpsit on a promissory note for 700 dollars, dated the 13th of August, 1811, payable to Obádiah Huse or order, in four months, with grace, purporting to be signed by the defendant, and endorsed to the plaintiffs. * At the trial, which was had on the general issue, [ *40 ] before Parker, J., at the last November term in this county, it appeared that the note was endorsed by O. Huse, in the course of trade. The genuineness of the endorsement was not contested; but the plaintiffs were required to prove the signature of the maker, and for that purpose read the deposition of Zopkar Hayden, which came up in the case. The purport of the deposition is, that, in October, 1811, the wit ness, Hayden, accompanied the plaintiff, Hall, at his request, to Dorchester, with a view to ascertain whether the defendant woulci acknowledge the signature of a note which Hall then had, and which the witness believed to be the note sued in this action. On their arrival, Mr. Hall got out of the chaise, and calling the defendant out, had some conversation with him, which the witness did not hear. The witness, being then called by Hall, went to him, and the latter presented the note to the defendant, and inquired if the signature was his. He said it was, and requested Hall not to distress him, for that he expected the arrival of a vessel soon. The witness thought that the defendant took the note into his hands, examined it, and pronounced it to be good. The plaintiffs rested on the acknowledgment of the signature by the defendant, as stated in Hayden’s deposition, and on evidence that the said O. Huse continued to reside in Boston, until late in the month of November, 1811, when he absconded. It did not appear at the trial that the defendant did, at any time after Hall’s application to him, and prior to O. Huse’s absconding, apprize the plaintiffs that the signature was not genuine ; nor that he did anything whereby the plaintiffs might have been induced to attempt the obtaining from the said O. Huse any further security prior to his departure. No evidence was offered by the defendant to impeach the testimony of Hayden, or to show that the acknowledgment stated in the deposition was obtained under any unfair circumstances. But it appeared that the defendant was seventy years of age, and [ *41 ] that he had written his name on several * blank pieces of paper, and given them to the said O. Huse, to be filled up as he should want them. It further appeared that, as early as September, 1811, it was known in Boston, that the said O. Huse had forged the name of one Allen; but it did not appear that this was known to the defendant, at the time of the interview between him and Hall, or at any time afterwards. To prove that the signature was not genuine, the defendant offered several witnesses, to testify that they were acquainted with his hand-writing, and that, in their opinion, the signature was not genuine; and also the signature of the defendant, which was proved to be genuine. The plaintiffs objected to the admission of this testimony, on the ground that the defendant’s, acknowledgment, as proved in said deposition, was conclusive. But the judge overruled the objection, and the testimony was admitted, (a) The judge instructed the jury that, notwithstanding the testimony of Hayden, if they believed, from the evidence in the case, that the signature was not genuine, they ought to find a verdict for the defendant, which they accordingly did. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was to be granted them, if, in the opinion of the Court, improper evidence was admit ted at the trial, or if the direction of the judge to the jury was wrong in point of law.