Scott v. Horn
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Carbon. Deo. 19. Assumpsit on a guaranty of a sealed post-note of the Northampton Bank. The plaintiff’s witnesses were unable to identify the seal, because of the faintness of the impression; but the court admitted the note in evidence, after proof of defendant’s guaranty endorsed thereon.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Carbon. Deo. 19. Assumpsit on a guaranty of a sealed post-note of the Northampton Bank. The plaintiff’s witnesses were unable to identify the seal, because of the faintness of the impression; but the court admitted the note in evidence, after proof of defendant’s guaranty endorsed thereon. The cashier of the bank, when examined by the defendant, testified to the regularity of the execution of the instrument, which on its face purported to be sealed with the corporate seal of the bank, and was signed by the president and cashier. The court also rejected…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
It is a rule of pleading and evidence, that the allegata and probata must agree. If, therefore, the plaintiff, as here, declares on a sealed instrument, alleging it to be sealed with the seal of the bank, he cannot give in evidence a note signed by the officers of the bank without any seal attached to it. This" is clear; and the doubt is, whether the instrument offered in evidence was of the former or latter description. Preliminary to offering testimony, the plaintiff proved the handwriting of the president and cashier of the bank. He then offered the note. [Here his honour stated it.] The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- M'Corkle v. BinnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Bailis v. CochranNew York Supreme Court · 1807