Meredith v. Hinsdale
New York Supreme Court
Debt on a bond executed in Pennsylvania. On production of the instrument, it appeared that, instead of being sealed with wafer or wax, there was an ink seal, or mark in ink, of L. S. in the locus sigilli, and that in the body of the deed the obligor was described by the name of Hins-dall, but in the signature it was spelt Hinsdale, by which name he was sued.
Read the full summary
Debt on a bond executed in Pennsylvania. On production of the instrument, it appeared that, instead of being sealed with wafer or wax, there was an ink seal, or mark in ink, of L. S. in the locus sigilli, and that in the body of the deed the obligor was described by the name of Hins-dall, but in the signature it was spelt Hinsdale, by which name he was sued. A verdict having been taken for the plaintiff by consent, with an agreement to enter a nonsuit if the opinion of the court should be against him, the case. was submitted to them without argument on these points; 1. Whether an action of…
1Opinion of the CourtLiyingston, J.
The principal question is, shall an instrument purporting to be a bond, and in its usual form and terms, delivered also as the maker’s deed, not be considered as a specialty, because the L. S. are affixed to his name' instead of being sealed with wax or wafer ?
However ancient the use of seals, as a mark of authenticity to- instruments, may be, or to whatever cause their origin may be ascribed, it is certain that in modern times a private seal is. not regarded as evidence of truth, or of belonging to the party to whose signature it is affixed, but that men promiscuously use each other’s seals…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Le Roy v. BeardSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Warren v. LynchNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Schofield v. JenningsIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Hart v. LindseySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1845
- Excelsior Manufacturing Co. v. WheelockNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1892