Henning v. Werkheiser
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Wyoming county. July 10. Debt upon an instrument sealed by both parties with two subscribing witnesses. Plea, non est factum. At the trial the plaintiff called one of the witnesses, who proved that he signed at request of the plaintiff in the absence of the defendant. That at that time the' name of the other witness was on the instrument, and that the defendant subsequently ratified the subscription by the witness.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Wyoming county. July 10. Debt upon an instrument sealed by both parties with two subscribing witnesses. Plea, non est factum. At the trial the plaintiff called one of the witnesses, who proved that he signed at request of the plaintiff in the absence of the defendant. That at that time the' name of the other witness was on the instrument, and that the defendant subsequently ratified the subscription by the witness. The other subscribing witness proved that he wrote his name at the request of plaintiff in the presence of defendant’s wife, but defendant was…
1Per curiam
The facts of the case are that neither of the witnesses was present when the article was executed, nor had the defendant’s authority to attest it when he subsequently subscribed it in the defendant’s absence, and at the plaintiff’s request. Marshall v. Gougler shows that this subsequent act of authentication superadded to a deed already complete, made the whole void, subject, however, to be restored by subsequent ratification by the party to be affected by it, as a new act of execution, or as an equivalent for a precedent authority. The defendant did in fact ratify the act of subscription by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shiffer v. MosierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Everhart v. FulmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914