Graham v. Spang

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 9, 1888

Graham v. Spang, 1 Monag. 167 (Pa. 1888)

16 A. 91; 1888 Pa. LEXIS 757

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The evidence, the admission of which is complained of in the first assignment of error, was rightly admitted. It is true, the note, on its face, showed a manifest interlineation, but the proof that it had been admitted on the former trial without objection, was sufficient to warrant its reception as prima facie evidence.

The exception to the opinion of the expert was not well taken. The case on which he was called to pass was not one of a comparison of separate writings, but one involving a comparison of part of the writing in the note with the signature; this was a proper subject for his opinion. Rees v. Rees, 90 Pa. 189.

The judgment is affirmed. A. B. W.-

Reference

Status: Published
Syllabus: In an action to recover the amount of a bank deposit, the defendant bank offered a promissory note given by the plaintiff as an offset. Its admission in evidence was objected to because the words “ with interest ” appeared as an interlineation. Defendant then called a witness who testified that the plaintiff admitted, at a former trial, the execution of the note; that the note had not been changed since; and then renewed the offer. Admitted. Held, not to be error. ■ An expert’s testimony may be admitted, in such case, to prove that an interlineation in a note and the signature are in the same hand-writing.