Armstrong v. Pearce

5 Del. 351

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 5, 1851
• Status: Published

Opinion

The Court

refused the nonsuit. A seal upon wax is not necessary ; but something designed to answer the purpose of a seal is necessary. The expression in the body of the note “witness my hand and seal,” does not make the seal; and there is not even any thing to leave to the jury, to show there was ever a seal made to the note. It may seem absurd to give consequence to a mere scroll seal made by the flourish of a pen; but such a seal is as good at this day as the wax seal was formerly. Once it answered the purpose of identification, being marked with a device belonging to the party who used it; now the identification is produced by the signature; and the seal now as well as formerly, fixes the character of the instrument to which it is affixed. This is a useful purpose. It is well understood that when a seal is used, it imports deliberation and solemnity in the transaction ; that it imparts an importance and finality to it, which do not belong to instruments not under seal.

This use of a seal is equally important as when the impression ,was made upon wax; and it would be dangerous to-imply the seal, where no other evidence existed of the party ever having executed a paper under seal, than the expression “ witness my hand and seal.” (53 Eng. Com. Law Rep., 232.)

Verdict for plaintiff.