Hinsaman v. Hinsaman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hinsaman v. Hinsaman

52 N.C. 510

DecidedJune 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 52 N.C. 510 (Hinsaman v. Hinsaman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinsaman v. Hinsaman, 52 N.C. 510 (N.C. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Manly, J.

Ye are at a loss to conceive upon what ground the insufficiency of the execution of the bond is put. One may execute such an instrument by making a mark in such way as to adopt the seal used, and it is a good bond. The [512]*512form of the mark or the number of ihe strokes of the pen is not material. It can make no difference whether it be an illegible attempt at writing, or simply designed as a mark.— The writing of the name below the scrawl does not hurt the execution or annul the obligation. Such a prefix or addition, as an interpreter, is of universal custom. Proper evidence was offered on the trial to establish the execution in tire manner stated, and such an execution we deem unquestionably legal. The instruction, therefore to the jury, upon that point, was correct. The instruction, also, as to the presumption of payment, from lapse of time, was correct.

There is no error, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Manly, J.

Ye are at a loss to conceive upon what ground the insufficiency of the execution of the bond is put. One may execute such an instrument by making a mark in such way as to adopt the seal used, and it is a good bond. The [512]*512form of the mark or the number of ihe strokes of the pen is not material. It can make no difference whether it be an illegible attempt at writing, or simply designed as a mark.— The writing of the name below the scrawl does not hurt the execution or annul the obligation. Such a prefix or addition, as an interpreter, is of universal custom. Proper evidence was offered on the trial to establish the execution in tire manner stated, and such an execution we deem unquestionably legal. The instruction, therefore to the jury, upon that point, was correct. The instruction, also, as to the presumption of payment, from lapse of time, was correct.

There is no error, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.C. 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinsaman-v-hinsaman-nc-1860.