TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Myers v. Toscan

J. J. MYERS v. B. TOSCAN

Myers v. Toscan, 3 N.H. 47 (1824)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of New Hampshire · State Trial Courts
Decided
February 15, 1824
Judges
Vrdso
Citations
3 N.H. 47
Headnotes
It cannot lie left to a jury to determine the genuineness of a signature to a paper, merely by comparing it with other signatures proved to be genuine. But when witnesses, acquainted with the hand-writing in question, have testified, other signatures proved to be genuine, may be submitted to the jury, to corrobO' rate or weaken their testimony.
Summary
Trover, for sundry articles. The cause was tried here, at September term, 1823, upon the general issue ; when it appeared in evidence, that the articles were once the property of the plaintiff, and that they were in the hands of the defendant, who, when requested, refused to deliver them to the plaintiff. The defendant relied upon a sale of the articles to him by the plaintiff, and produced a paper, purporting to be signed by the plaintiff, and acknowledging the receipt of payment, for the articles. The defendant, then produced another paper, purporting to be signed by the plaintiff, and proved the signature to be genuine. The court permitted the paper, thus proved to he genuine, to be submitted to the jury, and instructed them that they might compare the signatures, and if satisfied from the comparison, that the receipt was genuine, they must return a verdict, for the defendant. The jury having returned a verdict, for the defendant, the piaintiif moved for a new trial, on the ground, that the jury had been misdirected.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Vrdso

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rich vrdso.n, C. J.

We take it to be a well settled principle of law, that it cannot he left to a jury to determine, whether a signature is genuine or not, merely by comparing it with other signatures proved to be genuine. Phillips Ev. 371.—Peake's Ev. 7 2.—5 Johnson 155. —Swift’s Evid. 29.—4 Esp. cases 117, The King vs. Castor. —4 do. 37, Garrells vs. Alexander.

But when w itnesses, acquainted with the hand-writing in question, have been called and examined, other signatures, proved to be genuine, may be submitted to the jury, to corroborate or weaken the testimony of such witnesses, 1 Esp. cases 351, Allesbrook vs. Roach .—Peake’s Ev. 73.—1 G allison 170, Smith vs. Fenner.—5 Binney 349 .—11 Mass. Rep. 309, Homer vs. Wallis.

As it was submitted'To the jury in this case, to decide by a mere comparison of hand-writing, we entertain no doubt, there must be A new trial granted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1852–1853: 11862–1863: 118522026peak 1852 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bowman v. Sanborn & Harper25 N.H. 87 (1852)
  2. Calkins v. State14 Ohio St. (N.S.) 222 (1863)

Most recent

  1. Calkins v. State14 Ohio St. (N.S.) 222 (1863)
  2. Bowman v. Sanborn & Harper25 N.H. 87 (1852)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list