CJS on Signatures

CJS SIGNAT SUM 80 C.J.S. Signatures Summary

Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. Summary Scope: This article discusses the requisites, necessity, making and significance of a signature that has been affixed to an instrument and sufficiency thereof in general. Treated Elsewhere: Signature and verification of applications for discovery of writings, see C.J.S., Discovery 105. Sufficiency of signatures to a guaranty, see C.J.S., Guaranty 21. Requisites and sufficiency of signature on a pleading, see C.J.S., Pleading 483. Requisites and sufficiency of signatures on a will, see C.J.S., Wills 171. Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT SUM END OF DOCUMENT

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

CJS SIGNAT I REF 80 C.J.S. Signatures I Refs.

Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. I. Definition, Necessity and Intent Topic Summary Research References A.L.R. Library A.L.R. Index: Signatures West's A.L.R. Digest, Signatures 1

Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT I REF END OF DOCUMENT


CJS SIGNAT 1 80 C.J.S. Signatures 1

Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. I. Definition, Necessity and Intent Topic Summary References 1. Definition West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1 The word "signature" may be defined as a name, mark, or sign affixed to, or made on, an instrument or document in token of knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation. The word "sign," used as a verb, may be defined to mean to affix a signature; to ratify by hand or seal; to subscribe in one's own handwriting. A signature has been defined as the act of putting down a person's name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity;[1] any mark or sign made on an instrument or document in token of knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation;[2] and as whatever mark, symbol, or device one may choose to employ as representative of himself.[3] A signature consists of both the act of writing the person's name and of the intention of authenticating the instrument.[4] The word "signature" has generally come to mean the name of a person written by the person or the person's autograph.[5] When used as a verb, "to sign" is defined as meaning to affix a signature to;[6] to ratify by hand or seal;[7] to subscribe in one's own handwriting;[8] to show or declare assent, or attention, by some sign or mark;[9] to write one's name on paper, or to show or declare assent or attestation by some sign or mark.[10] As applied to a written instrument, it indicates the signing with one's own hand.[11] Legally, "to sign" means to attach a name, or cause it to be attached, by any method, on an instrument with the intention of signing it.[12] Other terms compared or distinguished. The words "subscribe" and "sign" have different meanings[13] in both the present and past tense.[14] The word "sign," used as a verb, has a more comprehensive meaning than the word "subscribe."[15] "To sign" connotes every kind of written authentication, while "to subscribe" indicates the making of a particular kind of signature.[16] At common law, an instrument could be "signed" by placing the signature anywhere upon the instrument, but "subscribing" an instrument required that the signature be placed at the end of the instrument.[17] However, under some circumstances the words "signed" and "subscribed" have been regarded as interchangeable,[18] and the word "subscribe" or "subscribed" has been held to mean "sign" or "signed,"[19] and the word "signed" has been construed to mean "subscribed."[20] A distinction in meaning has been recognized between "execute" and "sign,"[21] between "executed" and



Page 2

"signed,"[22] and between "execution" and "signing"[23] or "signature."[24] However, under some circumstances "executed" has been regarded as synonymous with "signed"[25] or "signature,"[26] and "execution" has been regarded as synonymous with "signed,"[27] "signing,"[28] or "signature."[29] An indorsement may be the equivalent of a signature.[30]

[FN1] N.C.State v. Watts, 289 N.C. 445, 222 S.E.2d 389 (1976). S.C.Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416 (1938). End of instrument The ordinary legal meaning of the word "signature" is that the person's name has been written at the end of the instrument. Ky.Ashbrook v. Roberts, 82 Ky. 298, 6 Ky. L. Rptr. 317, 1884 WL 7382 (1884). [FN2] Cal.In re Manchester's Estate, 174 Cal. 417, 163 P. 358 (1917); In re Walker's Estate, 110 Cal. 387, 42 P. 815 (1895); Weiner v. Mullaney, 59 Cal. App. 2d 620, 140 P.2d 704 (2d Dist. 1943). Tex.Bustillos v. State, 152 Tex. Crim. 275, 213 S.W.2d 837 (1948). [FN3] U.S.Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, 79 F. Supp. 117 (S.D. Cal. 1948), judgment vacated on other grounds, 89 F. Supp. 962 (S.D. Cal. 1950), order rev'd on other grounds 188 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1951). Any mark Any mark placed on a document with the intent to execute the document is a sufficient signature on the document. N.Y.Matter of Ernst B., 177 Misc. 2d 22, 675 N.Y.S.2d 805 (Fam. Ct. 1998). [FN4] Ill. Just Pants v. Wagner, 247 Ill. App. 3d 166, 187 Ill. Dec. 38, 617 N.E.2d 246 (1st Dist. 1993); People v. Stephens, 12 Ill. App. 3d 215, 297 N.E.2d 224 (2d Dist. 1973). La.Action Finance Corp. v. Nichols, 180 So. 2d 81 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965). Similar definitions (1) The term "signature" includes any memorandum, mark, or sign, written or placed upon any instrument or writing with intent to execute or authenticate such instrument or writing. U.S.Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, 79 F. Supp. 117 (S.D. Cal. 1948), judgment vacated on other grounds, 89 F. Supp. 962 (S.D. Cal. 1950), order rev'd on other grounds, 188 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1951). N.Y.In re Romaniw's Will, 163 Misc. 481, 296 N.Y.S. 925 (Sur. Ct. 1937).



Page 3

Okla.Boyer v. State, 68 Okla. Crim. 220, 97 P.2d 779 (1939); Moss v. Arnold, 63 Okla. Crim. 343, 75 P.2d 491 (1938). Or.Toon v. Wapinitia Irr. Co., 117 Or. 374, 243 P. 554 (1926). (2) "Signing consists both of the act of writing a person's name and the intention in doing this to execute [or] authenticate." Minn.U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Siegmann, 87 Minn. 175, 91 N.W. 473 (1902). [FN5] U.S.U. S. v. Calhoun, 14 M.J. 588 (N.M.C.M.R. 1982). Cal.In re Walker's Estate, 110 Cal. 387, 42 P. 815 (1895). [FN6] D.C.McGrady v. Munsey Trust Co., 32 A.2d 106 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1943). OhioWilliams v. Dewey, 19 Ohio Op. 2d 305, 87 Ohio L. Abs. 106, 178 N.E.2d 808 (Ct. App. 4th Dist. Pike County 1961). Tex.Zaruba v. Schumaker, 178 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Civ. App. Galveston 1944). Phrases using word "sign" or "signed" Ill.Bamberger v. Barbour, 335 Ill. 458, 167 N.E. 122 (1929). [FN7] Tex.Zaruba v. Schumaker, 178 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Civ. App. Galveston 1944). [FN8] Me.Wamesit Nat. Bank v. Merriam, 114 Me. 437, 96 A. 740 (1916). Tex.Zaruba v. Schumaker, 178 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Civ. App. Galveston 1944). [FN9] N.Y.Davis v. Shields, 26 Wend. 341, 1841 WL 3918 (N.Y. 1841). [FN10] N.Y.James v. M. and S. Patten., 6 N.Y. 9, 1851 WL 5980 (1851). Tex.Delespine v. State, 396 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965). [FN11] Ga.Hansen v. Owens, 132 Ga. 648, 64 S.E. 800 (1909). Hand immaterial Hand with which maker signed promissory note was immaterial to its validity, as signature may be any representation of person's willingness to be bound. La. Williamson v. Guice, 613 So. 2d 797 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993), writ denied, 617 So. 2d 937 (La. 1993). [FN12] Ky.Blackburn v. City of Paducah, 441 S.W.2d 395 (Ky. 1969). S.C.Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416 (1938).



Page 4

Primary meaning (1) "To sign" is to make any mark. Cal.In re Manchester's Estate, 174 Cal. 417, 163 P. 358 (1917); In re Walker's Estate, 110 Cal. 387, 42 P. 815 (1895); Weiner v. Mullaney, 59 Cal. App. 2d 620, 140 P.2d 704 (2d Dist. 1943). Tex.Bustillos v. State, 152 Tex. Crim. 275, 213 S.W.2d 837 (1948). (2) "To sign an instrument or document is to make any mark upon it in token of knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation." Cal.In re Manchester's Estate, 174 Cal. 417, 163 P. 358 (1917); In re Walker's Estate, 110 Cal. 387, 42 P. 815 (1895); Weiner v. Mullaney, 59 Cal. App. 2d 620, 140 P.2d 704 (2d Dist. 1943). Tex.Bustillos v. State, 152 Tex. Crim. 275, 213 S.W.2d 837 (1948). [FN13] Miss. Baker v. Baker's Estate, 199 Miss. 388, 24 So. 2d 841 (1946); Armstrong v. Walton, 105 Miss. 337, 62 So. 173 (1913). [FN14] Miss.In re George's Estate, 208 Miss. 734, 45 So. 2d 571 (1950); Baker v. Baker's Estate, 199 Miss. 388, 24 So. 2d 841 (1946); Better v. Hirsch, 115 Miss. 614, 76 So. 555 (1917). Or.Commercial Credit Corp. v. Marden, 155 Or. 29, 62 P.2d 573, 112 A.L.R. 931 (1936). [FN15] Ind.Hamilton v. State, 103 Ind. 96, 2 N.E. 299 (1885). [FN16] N.Y.James v. M. and S. Patten., 6 N.Y. 9, 1851 WL 5980 (1851). [FN17] Ky.Terrell v. Commonwealth, 194 Ky. 608, 240 S.W. 81 (1922). Miss.United Mississippi Bank v. GMAC Mortg. Co., 615 So. 2d 1174 (Miss. 1993). N.Y.In re Strong's Will, 16 N.Y.S. 104 (Sur. Ct. 1891); Miller v. Pelletier, 4 Edw. Ch. 102, 1842 WL 4179 (N.Y. Ch. 1842); Davis v. Shields, 26 Wend. 341, 1841 WL 3918 (N.Y. 1841). As to location of signature, generally, see 6. [FN18] Cal.California Canneries Co. v. Scatena, 117 Cal. 447, 49 P. 462 (1897); In re Walker's Estate, 110 Cal. 387, 42 P. 815 (1895). Neb.Myers v. Moore, 78 Neb. 448, 110 N.W. 989 (1907). [FN19] Neb.Myers v. Moore, 78 Neb. 448, 110 N.W. 989 (1907). [FN20] Tex.Wade v. State, 22 Tex. App. 256, 2 S.W. 594 (Ct. App. 1886). [FN21] Me.Wamesit Nat. Bank v. Merriam, 114 Me. 437, 96 A. 740 (1916). OhioWilliams v. Dewey, 19 Ohio Op. 2d 305, 87 Ohio L. Abs. 106, 178 N.E.2d 808 (Ct. App. 4th



Page 5

Dist. Pike County 1961). Distinction stated "To 'sign' one must subscribe in his own handwriting; to 'execute' he may use the hand of another." Me.Wamesit Nat. Bank v. Merriam, 114 Me. 437, 96 A. 740 (1916). [FN22] Me.Wamesit Nat. Bank v. Merriam, 114 Me. 437, 96 A. 740 (1916). [FN23] N.Y.Hayes v. Ammon, 90 A.D. 604, 85 N.Y.S. 607 (1st Dep't 1904). Distinction stated "Execution implies complete executionsigning, sealing, and deliverywhereas signing implies only one of the steps towards execution." N.Y.Hayes v. Ammon, 90 A.D. 604, 85 N.Y.S. 607 (1st Dep't 1904). [FN24] Me.Wamesit Nat. Bank v. Merriam, 114 Me. 437, 96 A. 740 (1916). [FN25] N.Y.In re Livingston, 62 Misc. 334, 115 N.Y.S. 269 (County Ct. 1909). W.Va.Bensimer v. Fell, 35 W. Va. 15, 12 S.E. 1078 (1891). Wis.Nielson v. Schuckman, 53 Wis. 638, 11 N.W. 44 (1881). [FN26] Wis.Nielson v. Schuckman, 53 Wis. 638, 11 N.W. 44 (1881). [FN27] Wis.Nielson v. Schuckman, 53 Wis. 638, 11 N.W. 44 (1881). [FN28] Cal.Knowles v. Murphy, 107 Cal. 107, 40 P. 111 (1895); King v. Tarabino, 53 Cal. App. 157, 199 P. 890 (2d Dist. 1921). [FN29] Cal.King v. Tarabino, 53 Cal. App. 157, 199 P. 890 (2d Dist. 1921). Wis.Nielson v. Schuckman, 53 Wis. 638, 11 N.W. 44 (1881). [FN30] N.Y.People v. Chapman, 4 Parker Crim. Rep. 56 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1858). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 1 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. I. Definition, Necessity and Intent Topic Summary References 2. Necessity West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1 In the absence of a statute requiring a signature, a party to an instrument or document may be bound by it even though the party has not affixed a signature to the document. Instruments not required to be in writing or signed by the parties may be binding if accepted by the parties although not signed.[1] In the absence of a statutory provision requiring a signature, it is not essential to the validity of a sealed instrument that the obligor sign it; sealing it is sufficient.[2] When a signature is essential to the validity of an instrument, an acknowledgment will not suffice.[3]

[FN1] Ga.Delaware Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co., 126 Ga. 380, 55 S.E. 330 (1906). [FN2] Miss.State v. Martin, 56 Miss. 108, 1878 WL 7350 (1878). [FN3] Miss.Jones v. Gurlie, 61 Miss. 423, 1883 WL 6832 (1883). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 2 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. I. Definition, Necessity and Intent Topic Summary References 3. Purpose and intent West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1 A signature is affixed to a writing for the purpose of authenticating it and for the purpose and with the intent that the signer shall be bound by the writing. The purpose of a signature is to authenticate the writing to which it is affixed.[1] A signature may also serve to give notice of its source,[2] as well as for the purpose and with the intent that the individual signing the writing shall be bound thereby.[3]

[FN1] U.S.U. S. v. Wortman, 326 F.2d 717, 64-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9201, 13 A.F.T.R.2d 718 (7th Cir. 1964). Conn.Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Constitution Nat. Bank, 167 Conn. 478, 356 A.2d 117, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 439 (1975). Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). [FN2] IowaTown of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 1 N.W.2d 677 (1942). [FN3] Del.Parshalle v. Roy, 567 A.2d 19 (Del. Ch. 1989). Ind.State v. Gibson, 619 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1993). La.Williamson v. Guice, 613 So. 2d 797 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993), writ denied on other grounds, 617 So. 2d 937 (La. 1993); State ex rel. Langridge v. Harris, 138 So. 2d 197 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962). N.Y.People v. Lo Pinto, 27 A.D.2d 63, 275 N.Y.S.2d 969 (3d Dep't 1966). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 3



Page 2

END OF DOCUMENT


CJS SIGNAT II REF 80 C.J.S. Signatures II Refs.

Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary Research References A.L.R. Library A.L.R. Index: Signatures West's A.L.R. Digest, Signatures 1 to 5

Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT II REF END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 4. Generally West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1 Generally, if there is a requirement that an instrument shall be signed or subscribed, it is sufficient if the signature is affixed in any manner which is commonly used. Where an instrument is required to be signed, it is usually sufficient if the signature is affixed in any manner which is commonly used.[1] This general rule also applies when subscription is required.[2] Variance between the signature and the name of the party in the body of an instrument is not necessarily fatal to the validity of the instrument.[3]

[FN1] Ill.People v. Schumann, 120 Ill. App. 3d 518, 76 Ill. Dec. 43, 458 N.E.2d 182 (2d Dist. 1983). Ky.W.J. Fell Co. v. Elswick, 194 Ky. 641, 240 S.W. 373 (1922). Estoppel Va. Pate v. Southern Bank & Trust Co., 214 Va. 596, 203 S.E.2d 126, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 742 (1974). [FN2] Wis.Mezchen v. More, 54 Wis. 214, 11 N.W. 534 (1882). [FN3] Mich.Torrans v. Hicks, 32 Mich. 307, 1875 WL 3701 (1875). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 4 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 5. Non-autograph signature West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 5 Unless proscribed by statute, a person may use as his signature any character, symbol, figure, designation, or name other than his own, provided such form is used as a substitute for the name of the person. As a general rule, and in the absence of a statute providing otherwise, a person may use any character,[1] symbol,[2] figure,[3] or designation[4] the person thinks proper to adopt as a signature, and be bound thereby, provided it is used as a substitute for the person's name.[5] A person may also use a fictitious name,[6] a firm name,[7] or the name of another.[8] An illegible signature will not affect the validity of an instrument.[9] It is not necessary that the entire name be written.[10] The insertion in, or the omission from a signature of a middle name is immaterial.[11] A form of signature prescribed by statute is not exclusive of any other method legally sufficient to accomplish the same result.[12] The fact that the word "signed" is inserted before a signature does not render the signature insufficient.[13] By whom made. A signature may be made by the purported signer himself, or through someone duly authorized by him.[14] However, the attachment of the name of a person does not serve as a signature unless the person put it there intentionally or caused or permitted it to be put there by another.[15] Under a statute requiring an instrument to be signed in person,[16] the signature must be made by the person's own hand or by the hand of another, at his request and in his presence, and previous authority or subsequent ratification is not sufficient to overcome noncompliance.[17]

[FN1] Ark.Ragge v. Bryan, 249 Ark. 164, 458 S.W.2d 403, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 232 (1970). Ind.Gibson v. State, 661 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Tex.Delespine v. State, 396 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965). [FN2] Ark.Ragge v. Bryan, 249 Ark. 164, 458 S.W.2d 403, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 232 (1970). Ind.Gibson v. State, 661 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).



Page 2

Tex.Delespine v. State, 396 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965). [FN3] Ark.Ragge v. Bryan, 249 Ark. 164, 458 S.W.2d 403, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 232 (1970). Ind.Gibson v. State, 661 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Tex.Delespine v. State, 396 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965). [FN4] Ark.Ragge v. Bryan, 249 Ark. 164, 458 S.W.2d 403, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 232 (1970). Ind.Gibson v. State, 661 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Tex.Delespine v. State, 396 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965). [FN5] Ark.Ragge v. Bryan, 249 Ark. 164, 458 S.W.2d 403, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 232 (1970); Aberdeen Oil Co. v. Goucher, 235 Ark. 787, 362 S.W.2d 20 (1962). Pa.Com., Dept. of Transp. Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Ballard, 17 Pa. Commw. 310, 331 A.2d 578 (1975); Com. v. Wix, 10 Chest. 497 (Pa. Quar. Sess. 1962). [FN6] Ark.Walker v. Emrich, 212 Ark. 598, 206 S.W.2d 769 (1947). Mo.Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. West, 260 S.W.2d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953). [FN7] Ark.Walker v. Emrich, 212 Ark. 598, 206 S.W.2d 769 (1947). [FN8] Ark.Walker v. Emrich, 212 Ark. 598, 206 S.W.2d 769 (1947). Mo.Radley v. Meek, 178 Mo. App. 238, 165 S.W. 1192 (1914). [FN9] Pa.Tomilio v. Pisco, 123 Pa. Super. 423, 187 A. 86 (1936). [FN10] Ga.Evans v. Moore, 131 Ga. App. 169, 205 S.E.2d 507, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 555 (1974). N.Y.Wagner v. Chemical Bank & Trust Co., 154 Misc. 123, 276 N.Y.S. 717 (Mun. Ct. 1934). [FN11] Ala.Williams v. State, 33 Ala. App. 119, 31 So. 2d 590 (1947), judgment aff'd, 249 Ala. 432, 31 So. 2d 592 (1947). [FN12] Ky.Pardue v. Webb, 253 Ky. 838, 70 S.W.2d 665 (1934). [FN13] Cal.People v. Crane, 4 Cal. App. 142, 87 P. 239 (1st Dist. 1906). [FN14] U.S.U. S. v. Wortman, 326 F.2d 717, 64-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9201, 13 A.F.T.R.2d 718 (7th Cir. 1964). Fla.State v. Hickman, 189 So. 2d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1966). Tex.In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 20 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App. El Paso 2000). As to signature by the hand of another, see 13.



Page 3

[FN15] U.S.U. S. v. Wortman, 326 F.2d 717, 64-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9201, 13 A.F.T.R.2d 718 (7th Cir. 1964). N.J.Silver v. Com. Trust Co., 22 N.J. Super. 604, 92 A.2d 152 (County Ct. 1952), opinion adhered to on reargument, 24 N.J. Super. 504, 94 A.2d 880 (County Ct. 1953). [FN16] Mass.Com. v. Connelly, 163 Mass. 539, 40 N.E. 862 (1895). [FN17] Mass.Com. v. Connelly, 163 Mass. 539, 40 N.E. 862 (1895). Wis.Mericle v. Mulks, 1 Wis. 366, 1853 WL 1724 (1853). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 5 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 6. Location West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1 The typical placement of a signature is at the end of the matter or instrument which is to be authenticated or attested, and it is sometimes essential that the signature appear there; but generally, in the absence of statutory requirement as to location, a signature placed on any part of the instrument is sufficient. While the usual place for a signature is at the end of the matter or instrument which is to be authenticated or attested,[1] in the absence of a statutory requirement as to the location of a signature, the place of a signature on a writing is not controlling.[2] Thus, it is not necessary that the signature appear at the end of the instrument.[3] The signature may be sufficient if the name of the person whose signature is required is placed in any part of the instrument,[4] for the purpose of authenticating it.[5] The signature may appear at the top[6] or in the body [7] of the instrument, written across the face of a document,[8] or it may be placed on another statement or writing accompanying the instrument.[9] A signature placed between two parts of an instrument may apply to the whole instrument if it can be proven that it was the intent of the signer to do so.[10] However, in regards to matter appearing below the signature,[11] on the back of the instrument,[12] or on separate sheets of paper,[13] a signature will only authenticate the matter intended by the parties to be included as part of the instrument at the time of the signing.[14] In that case, it is essential that the intention be manifested either by express reference or by internal evidence in the writings involved.[15] Where a person intends to sign as a witness to an instrument, but signs it in the place for the principal to sign, the fact that he signed as a witness may be shown.[16] Likewise, where a signer intends to sign as a principal but signs in the place of a witness, that fact may be shown.[17]

[FN1] Ga.Delaware Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co., 126 Ga. 380, 55 S.E. 330 (1906). Ky.Ashbrook v. Roberts, 82 Ky. 298, 6 Ky. L. Rptr. 317, 1884 WL 7382 (1884). Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944).



Page 2

As to location of mark used as signature, see 9. [FN2] Fla.State v. Morris, 223 So. 2d 743 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1969). Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). Pa.Old Forge Borough v. Foley Estate, 67 Pa. Super. 125, 1917 WL 3331 (1917). Discretion of court U.S.In re Kossack, 113 F. Supp. 884 (S.D. Cal. 1953). [FN3] U.S.U S v. Railway Exp Agency, 28 C.C.P.A. 314, C.A.D. 161, 1941 WL 4530 (1941). IowaTown of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 1 N.W.2d 677 (1942). Pa.Tomilio v. Pisco, 123 Pa. Super. 423, 187 A. 86 (1936); Old Forge Borough v. Foley Estate, 67 Pa. Super. 125, 1917 WL 3331 (1917). Signature at end not required (1) Where a statute requires signing only, generally it is not essential that the signature should be placed at the end of the instrument or writing. N.C.Devereux v. McMahon, 108 N.C. 134, 12 S.E. 902 (1891). (2) If statute does not require instrument to be subscribed, generally it is not essential that the signature be placed at the end. N.C.In re Williams' Will, 234 N.C. 228, 66 S.E.2d 902 (1951). (3) Unless statute requires that signature be subscribed, signature may be placed anywhere on instrument. Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). [FN4] U.S.U S v. Railway Exp Agency, 28 C.C.P.A. 314, C.A.D. 161, 1941 WL 4530 (1941). Ariz.Reidy v. Almich, 4 Ariz. App. 144, 418 P.2d 390 (Div. 2 1966). Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). Miss.United Mississippi Bank v. GMAC Mortg. Co., 615 So. 2d 1174 (Miss. 1993). [FN5] U.S.U S v. Railway Exp Agency, 28 C.C.P.A. 314, C.A.D. 161, 1941 WL 4530 (1941). Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). Pa.Old Forge Borough v. Foley Estate, 67 Pa. Super. 125, 1917 WL 3331 (1917). [FN6] U.S.U S v. Railway Exp Agency, 28 C.C.P.A. 314, C.A.D. 161, 1941 WL 4530 (1941).



Page 3

Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). Wash.Wright v. Seattle Grocery Co., 105 Wash. 383, 177 P. 818 (1919). [FN7] U.S.U S v. Railway Exp Agency, 28 C.C.P.A. 314, C.A.D. 161, 1941 WL 4530 (1941). Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). [FN8] Cal.California Canneries Co. v. Scatena, 117 Cal. 447, 49 P. 462 (1897). [FN9] N.Y.Connor v. Acme Engineering & Contracting Co., 148 A.D. 518, 132 N.Y.S. 782 (3d Dep't 1911). [FN10] Pa.Tomilio v. Pisco, 123 Pa. Super. 423, 187 A. 86 (1936). [FN11] Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). [FN12] Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). [FN13] Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). [FN14] Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). Neb.Sofio v. Glissmann, 156 Neb. 610, 57 N.W.2d 176 (1953). [FN15] Minn.Brown v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n of Des Moines, Iowa, 216 Minn. 329, 12 N.W.2d 712 (1944). Neb.Sofio v. Glissmann, 156 Neb. 610, 57 N.W.2d 176 (1953). [FN16] Minn.U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Siegmann, 87 Minn. 175, 91 N.W. 473 (1902). N.Y.Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Denio 471, 1845 WL 4412 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1845). [FN17] Mass.Richardson v. Boynton, 94 Mass. 138, 12 Allen 138, 1866 WL 4824 (1866). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 6 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 7. Adoption of signature West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 4 In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, a person may adopt a signature made for him by another or a signature made by him on a previous occasion. In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, a person may adopt a signature written for him by another,[1 ] by subsequent approval and ratification.[2] A forged signature may also be adopted.[3] A signature purposely made by a person on a previous occasion may be adopted for a new writing with the same effect as when originally made.[4]

[FN1] U.S.J. & S. Ferguson v. Lyle, 267 F. 817 (C.C.A. 5th Cir. 1920). Ill.Miller v. Swanson, 66 Ill. App. 2d 179, 213 N.E.2d 294 (3d Dist. 1965). Ky.Blackburn v. City of Paducah, 441 S.W.2d 395 (Ky. 1969). Neb.Graff v. Graff, 179 Neb. 345, 138 N.W.2d 644 (1965). As to signature by the hand of another, see 13. Acts constituting adoption Where person whose name signature purported to be voluntarily stated that signature was his, in presence of other contracting party, who acted to his detriment on faith of such statement, signature was adopted. Wyo.Rowray v. Casper Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n, 48 Wyo. 290, 45 P.2d 7 (1935). [FN2] Ill.Logan v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 61 Ill. App. 3d 770, 18 Ill. Dec. 931, 378 N.E.2d 395 (3d Dist. 1978). La.Nationwide Finance Co. of Gretna v. Pitre, 243 So. 2d 326 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971).



Page 2

Md.Fisher v. McGuire, 282 Md. 507, 385 A.2d 211 (1978). [FN3] Cal. Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal. App. 2d 815, 167 P.2d 523 (3d Dist. 1946). Tex. Mondragon v. Mondragon, 113 Tex. 404, 257 S.W. 215 (1923); Stout v. Oliveira, 153 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Civ. App. El Paso 1941), writ refused w.o.m. on other grounds, (Oct. 1, 1941). UtahN.M. Long Co. v. Kenwood Co., 85 Utah 524, 39 P.2d 1088 (1935). Signature not adopted UtahN.M. Long Co. v. Kenwood Co., 85 Utah 524, 39 P.2d 1088 (1935). [FN4] Ky.Pontrich v. Neimann, 208 Ky. 715, 271 S.W. 1049 (1925). Wis.McAbee v. Gerarden, 187 Wis. 399, 204 N.W. 484 (1925). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 7 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 8. Use of initials and abbreviations West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 5 An instrument may be properly signed where either only the initial letter or letters of the given name or names are used with the surname, the full surname is used, the given name is used, or where initials are used, if a fuller signature is not required or contemplated under the particular circumstances. If a fuller signature is not required or contemplated under the particular circumstances, an instrument is properly signed, even though only the initial letter or letters of the given name or names, with the full surname, are used,[1] or only the full surname,[2] or only the given name of the person signing is used.[3] Signature may be by contraction of the real name.[4] A signature may also be made by the use of initials only[5] unless it is contemplated that the usual and complete name should be used.[6] Initials alone, if used as a signature, has the same effect as a signature using the entire name of the party.[7] A signature may be sufficient where the title of the signer is abbreviated.[8] Public officers. While in some instances the use of only the initials of a public officer as a signature has been regarded as sufficient,[9] under some circumstances, the surname is an essential part of an official signature,[10] preceded by the initials or full given name,[11] and initials alone are not a signature in legal proceedings.[12] A signing by the surname in full and the given name by its initials is generally sufficient in official signatures.[13] The fact that the name of an officer is near the word "countersigned" on a paper signed by several officers does not render the signature insufficient.[14] The official character or title of the signer may be abbreviated.[15]

[FN1] IowaGreenland v. Carter, 219 Iowa 369, 258 N.W. 678 (1935). Mich.People ex rel. Wright v. Kelly, 294 Mich. 503, 293 N.W. 865 (1940). N.Y.Mohawk Airlines, Inc. v. Peach, 81 Misc. 2d 211, 365 N.Y.S.2d 331 (Sup. Ct. 1974), modified on other grounds, 61 A.D.2d 346, 402 N.Y.S.2d 496 (4th Dep't 1978). Uniform Commercial Code



Page 2

Md.Plemens v. Didde-Glaser, Inc., 244 Md. 556, 224 A.2d 464, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1017 (1966). [FN2] IowaGreenland v. Carter, 219 Iowa 369, 258 N.W. 678 (1935). [FN3] IowaGreenland v. Carter, 219 Iowa 369, 258 N.W. 678 (1935). Tex.Delespine v. State, 396 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965). Full name appearing elsewhere in instrument Ind.Zann v. Haller, 71 Ind. 136, 1880 WL 6236 (1880). [FN4] IowaGreenland v. Carter, 219 Iowa 369, 258 N.W. 678 (1935). Mont.State v. Brown, 136 Mont. 382, 351 P.2d 219 (1959). [FN5] U.S.U.S. v. Wexler, 657 F. Supp. 966 (E.D. Pa. 1987). Ind.Gibson v. State, 661 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Fla.Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1957). N.Y.In re Mack's Will, 21 A.D.2d 205, 250 N.Y.S.2d 177 (3d Dep't 1964). [FN6] IowaGreenland v. Carter, 219 Iowa 369, 258 N.W. 678 (1935). [FN7] IowaGreenland v. Carter, 219 Iowa 369, 258 N.W. 678 (1935). [FN8] IowaGreenland v. Carter, 219 Iowa 369, 258 N.W. 678 (1935). [FN9] Ind.Brown v. Grzeskowiak, 230 Ind. 110, 101 N.E.2d 639 (1951). Tex. McCharen v. Mead, 275 S.W. 117 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio 1925); Turner v. Teller, 275 S.W. 115 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio 1925). [FN10] Ky.Johnson v. Caddell, 250 Ky. 640, 63 S.W.2d 810 (1933). [FN11] N.Y.Smith v. Geiger, 202 N.Y. 306, 95 N.E. 706 (1911). [FN12] Ky.Johnson v. Caddell, 250 Ky. 640, 63 S.W.2d 810 (1933). [FN13] Ind. Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n of Indianapolis v. McDonough, 164 Ind. 321, 73 N.E. 703 (1905), rev'd on other grounds, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236, 51 L. Ed. 345 (1907). [FN14] Ill.Gurnee v. City of Chicago, 40 Ill. 165, 1866 WL 4449 (1866). [FN15] Ind.Hawkins v. State, 136 Ind. 630, 36 N.E. 419 (1894). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 8



Page 3

END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 9. Mark as signature West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 5 Generally, in the absence of a statute providing otherwise, a signature may be made by the use of a mark. "Mark," as a signature, has been defined as a character, usually a cross, made as a substitute for a signature. [1] Generally, in the absence of a statute providing otherwise, signature may be made by the use of a mark,[2] where the signer is unable to write his name,[3] as, for example, where the party is physically unable to write.[4] According to some authorities, a mark may be used as a signature even though the person making it is capable of writing.[5] When an instrument is signed in this manner the person is bound as though the full name had been written.[6] The term "signature" is defined by some statutes as inclusive of a mark by a person who cannot write,[7] or by an illiterate or infirm person.[8] A signature made by mark in the manner provided for is sufficient.[9] Under some statutes, if a written signature is required and the signer is unable to write, the signature should be by the person's mark.[10] Where a signature is made by a mark, the mark itself, made by the person whose signature it is to become,[ 11] and not his name written near the mark,[12] is the signature.

[FN1] N.C.State v. Watts, 289 N.C. 445, 222 S.E.2d 389 (1976). Other definition "A mark for a name or signature is the sign of a cross made in a little space left between the Christian name and surname, and the word 'his' is usually written above the mark and the word 'mark' below it." Ky.Staples v. Bedford Loan & Deposit Bank, 98 Ky. 451, 17 Ky. L. Rptr. 1035, 33 S.W. 403 (1895). Pa.In re Kelly's Estate, 306 Pa. 551, 160 A. 454 (1932). Application of statutory definition



Page 2

La.Succession of Guidry, 145 So. 2d 613 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962). [FN2] Ark.Miller v. Mitchell, 224 Ark. 585, 275 S.W.2d 3 (1955). La.Davis-Delcambre Motors, Inc. v. Simon, 246 La. 105, 163 So. 2d 553 (1964). N.Y.In re Mack's Will, 21 A.D.2d 205, 250 N.Y.S.2d 177 (3d Dep't 1964). Intent to be bound Signature by mark is a valid signature where it is intended by the one so signing that he is to be thereby bound by the instrument so signed. OhioSterba v. Lienhard, 58 Ohio L. Abs. 65, 95 N.E.2d 12 (Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1950). Adoption of signature Making cross between Christian name and surname and between words "his mark" evidences adopting of signature and assent to document. Pa.In re Kelly's Estate, 306 Pa. 551, 160 A. 454 (1932). [FN3] Cal. Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal. App. 2d 815, 167 P.2d 523 (3d Dist. 1946). Ky.Conley v. Coburn, 297 Ky. 292, 179 S.W.2d 668 (1944). La.Mirandona Bros. v. Danos, 56 So. 2d 159 (La. Ct. App., Orleans 1952). [FN4] Cal.In re Guilfoyle's Will, 96 Cal. 598, 31 P. 553 (1892). [FN5] Ga.Mitchell v. Mitchell, 245 Ga. 291, 264 S.E.2d 222 (1980); Neill v. Hill, 32 Ga. App. 381, 123 S.E. 30 (1924). [FN6] Ky.Conley v. Coburn, 297 Ky. 292, 179 S.W.2d 668 (1944). [FN7] Ky.Terry v. Johnson, 109 Ky. 589, 22 Ky. L. Rptr. 1210, 60 S.W. 300 (1901). [FN8] Ga.Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1, 23 S.E. 107 (1895). [FN9] Ky.Terry v. Johnson, 109 Ky. 589, 22 Ky. L. Rptr. 1210, 60 S.W. 300 (1901). Fingerprints Ill.In re Deskovic's Estate, 21 Ill. App. 2d 209, 157 N.E.2d 769, 72 A.L.R.2d 1261 (1st Dist. 1959). [FN10] Mass.Irving v. Goodimate Co., 320 Mass. 454, 70 N.E.2d 414, 171 A.L.R. 326 (1946). [FN11] Mont.State v. Brown, 136 Mont. 382, 351 P.2d 219 (1959).



Page 3

Shield number Printing of undercover police officer's shield number on supporting disposition constitutes legal signature. N.Y.People v. Kenrick, 162 Misc. 2d 75, 615 N.Y.S.2d 859 (City Crim. Ct. 1994). [FN12] Ky.Staples v. Bedford Loan & Deposit Bank, 98 Ky. 451, 17 Ky. L. Rptr. 1035, 33 S.W. 403 (1895). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 9 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 10. Mark as signatureSufficiency West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 5 In the absence of a statute requiring otherwise, who writes the name accompanying the mark is immaterial and a signature by mark may be sufficient, notwithstanding the fact that the name accompanying the mark is written incorrectly, the wrong name is written, no name accompanying the mark is affixed, or words indicating that the mark is intended as such are omitted. In the absence of statute otherwise providing, it is immaterial by whom the name of the person accompanying the mark is written.[1] The full name of a party accompanying a mark made by him may be written by the obligee on the instrument.[2] The signature is not necessarily rendered insufficient by the fact that the full name written by another and accompanying the mark is written incorrectly.[3] The fact that a wrong name is written accompanying the mark,[4] or that words indicating that it is intended as a mark are omitted,[5] will not render a mark insufficient, at least where the full name accompanying the mark is written in the presence and at the request of the party.[6] In the absence of a statute requiring a name to accompany the mark, the validity of the mark as a signature is not affected by the fact that no name accompanies it.[7] Location. When a mark is used as a signature, it may be placed wherever the ordinary signature could be placed,[8] and, where the name must accompany the mark, the fact that the mark and the name are not in immediate proximity is immaterial.[9] Nonetheless, where a person signs with a mark or illegible signature, the better practice is to type or print his or her name under the signature.[10]

[FN1] Ala.Johnson v. Davis, 95 Ala. 293, 10 So. 911 (1892). As to mark made by hand of another than purported signer, see 13. [FN2] Ala.McGowan v. Collins, 154 Ala. 299, 46 So. 228 (1908). [FN3] W.Va.Bachinsky v. Federal Coal & Coke Co., 78 W. Va. 721, 90 S.E. 227 (1916). [FN4] Ala.Bailey's Heirs v. Bailey's Ex'r, 35 Ala. 687, 1860 WL 482 (1860).



Page 2

[FN5] N.C.Sellers v. Sellers, 98 N.C. 13, 3 S.E. 917 (1887). [FN6] Ala.Harwell v. Zimmerman, 157 Ala. 473, 47 So. 722 (1908). [FN7] Tex.Bustillos v. State, 152 Tex. Crim. 275, 213 S.W.2d 837 (1948). [FN8] Ga.Horton v. Murden, 117 Ga. 72, 43 S.E. 786 (1903). As to location of signatures, generally, see 6. [FN9] Cal.In re Guilfoyle's Will, 96 Cal. 598, 31 P. 553 (1892). [FN10] IowaState v. LeGrand, 501 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 10 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 11. Mark as signatureAttestation West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 5 At common law, a signature by mark may be valid even though it is not attested to by a witness. However, some statutes require attestation of a signature by mark. A signature by mark, although not attested by a witness, may be valid at common law.[1] However, some statutes require attestation of a signature by mark, but all instruments which are not included within the terms or scope of the statute may be signed by mark without attestation.[2] A signature which meets the statutory requirements as to attestation is sufficient.[3] Some statutes require that a signature by mark be witnessed and as such, in the absence of compliance with the statute, the instrument is not deemed as being signed.[4] If the instrument falls within the scope of the statute it is essential to the validity of the signature by mark that it be witnessed in the manner provided.[5] The exception is where the instrument is acknowledged before an officer competent to take acknowledgments,[6] or where certain documents are executed before a judicial officer.[7] These rules have been applied or recognized with respect to a statute providing that a signature or subscription includes a mark when the person cannot write and his name is written near the mark by a person who writes his own name as a witness.[8] Under such a statute, in the absence of any recognized exception, it is essential that the person who writes the name of the signer by mark should also write his own name as witness.[9] However, under other statutes the effect of compliance with the statute is only to establish the prima facie genuineness of the signature without other proof of signing.[10] In the absence of compliance with the statute a mark is not a prima facie signature,[11] unless properly acknowledged before an officer authorized to take acknowledgments.[12] Thus, the mere presentation of a signature by mark not so witnessed or acknowledged is not evidence of its validity.[13] Under a statute providing for a signing by mark to be witnessed, the obligee of the instrument may be a competent witness where the obligor signs by mark,[14] but there is some authority to the contrary.[15] It has been held that an agent of the obligee having no present pecuniary interest in the instrument may become the attesting witness required by statute.[16] Where a statute requires that an attesting witness shall be able to write and shall write his own name, it has been held that a mark cannot be used as a signature by the witness.[17]



Page 2

[FN1] Ark.Henry v. Union Sawmill Co., 171 Ark. 1023, 287 S.W. 203 (1926). [FN2] Ky.Love v. Gibbs, 273 Ky. 775, 117 S.W.2d 987 (1938). [FN3] U.S.Kessel v. Austin Min. Co., 144 F. 859 (C.C.D. Nev. 1906). [FN4] Ala.Flowers v. Bitting, 45 Ala. 448, 1871 WL 949 (1871) (overruled on other grounds in part by, Wimberly v. Dallas, 52 Ala. 196, 1875 WL 927 (1875)) and (overruling on other grounds recognized by, Ingalls Steel Products Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co., 226 Ala. 122, 145 So. 464 (1932)). [FN5] Okla.Walker Bond & Co. v. Purifier, 1912 OK 432, 32 Okla. 844, 124 P. 322 (1912). [FN6] IdahoFirst Nat. Bank v. Glenn, 10 Idaho 224, 77 P. 623 (1904). Authority to take acknowledgment, see C.J.S., Acknowledgments 30. [FN7] Okla.Walker Bond & Co. v. Purifier, 1912 OK 432, 32 Okla. 844, 124 P. 322 (1912). [FN8] Okla.Walker Bond & Co. v. Purifier, 1912 OK 432, 32 Okla. 844, 124 P. 322 (1912). [FN9] Okla.Walker Bond & Co. v. Purifier, 1912 OK 432, 32 Okla. 844, 124 P. 322 (1912). [FN10] Ark.Naill v. Kirby, 162 Ark. 140, 257 S.W. 735 (1924); Ward v. Stark Bros., 91 Ark. 268, 121 S.W. 382 (1909). [FN11] Ark.Henry v. Union Sawmill Co., 171 Ark. 1023, 287 S.W. 203 (1926). [FN12] Ark.Ward v. Stark Bros., 91 Ark. 268, 121 S.W. 382 (1909). [FN13] Ky.Vanover v. Murphy's Adm'r, 12 Ky. L. Rptr. 733, 15 S.W. 61 (Ky. 1891). [FN14] Ark.Dawkins v. Petteys, 121 Ark. 498, 181 S.W. 901 (1915). [FN15] Okla.Sivils v. Taylor, 1902 OK 62, 12 Okla. 47, 69 P. 867 (1902). [FN16] Ala.Mayhall v. Hyde, 22 Ala. App. 109, 113 So. 490 (1927). [FN17] Ala.Stewart v. Beard, 69 Ala. 470, 1881 WL 1182 (1881). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 11 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 12. By the hand of a party West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 3 A signature may be made by the hand of the purported signer either by his unaided efforts or with the aid of another. A signature may be physically made by signer,[1] either by his own unaided efforts,[2] or with the aid of another,[3] as, for example, where the other, with the signer's consent, guides the latter's pen or pencil.[4] Where the maker of an instrument in signing his name is assisted by another person guiding or steadying his hand, the signature thus made is the act of the maker and not the act of the person assisting him.[5] Under some statutes, if a written signature is required and the signer is able to write, the signature must be in the signer's own handwriting.[6]

[FN1] U.S.U. S. v. Wortman, 326 F.2d 717, 64-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9201, 13 A.F.T.R.2d 718 (7th Cir. 1964). Okla.Watson v. Johnson, 1965 OK 115, 411 P.2d 498 (Okla. 1965). Acknowledgment of genuineness La.State ex rel. Nelson v. Ellis, 176 So. 2d 685 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965). [FN2] N.C.State v. Abernethy, 190 N.C. 768, 130 S.E. 619 (1925). [FN3] Cal.Rich v. Ervin, 86 Cal. App. 2d 386, 194 P.2d 809 (1st Dist. 1948). Me.In re Cox' Will, 139 Me. 261, 29 A.2d 281 (1942). [FN4] Cal.Harris v. Harris, 59 Cal. 620, 1881 WL 2042 (1881). [FN5] Ark.Vines v. Clingfost, 21 Ark. 309, 1860 WL 712 (1860).



Page 2

[FN6] Mass.Irving v. Goodimate Co., 320 Mass. 454, 70 N.E.2d 414, 171 A.L.R. 326 (1946). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 12 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 13. By the hand of another West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 4 Generally, in the absence of a statute providing otherwise, a signature may be made for a person by the hand of another who acts in the presence of such person, at his direction or request, or with his acquiescence. Generally, a signature may be made for a person by the hand of another,[1] acting in the presence of such person,[2] and at his direction,[3] or request,[4] or with his acquiescence,[5] unless a statute provides otherwise.[6] A signature of this type becomes the signature of the person for whom it is made,[7] and it has the same validity as though written by him.[8] This mode of signing is sufficient for a sealed instrument, even though the party affixing the signature does not have authority to do so under seal.[9] Where a signature is made in this manner, the person writing the name is regarded as a mere instrumentality, by which the person whose signature is written exercises his own discretion and acts for himself,[10] and not through an agent.[11] Thus, a mark made for a person at their direction may be regarded as their signature.[12] The writing of a name or the making of a mark by one other than the person whose signature the name or mark purports to be may constitute a sufficient signature of such person, where he touches the pen or pencil used in the process while the signature is being made.[13] However, the touching of the pen or pencil is not essential to the validity of the signature.[14] It is not necessary under all circumstances that the signature of a person made by the hand of another should be made in the presence of such person.[15] The fact that a mark does not accompany a name written by the hand of another does not affect the validity of the signature.[16] By obligee for obligor. Contracting parties may not act for the other in making signatures.[17] Thus, an obligee is incompetent to subscribe for an illiterate obligor.[18] However, the agent of the obligee, having no present pecuniary interests in the instrument,[19] or a merely nominal obligee,[20] may act for the obligor in signing an instrument. The rule that an obligee is incompetent to sign for the obligor applies only when the instrument is required to be in writing and signed by the parties,[21] and that one contracting party may sign for another where the signature is not required by statute.[22] Signing through agent. A signature may be made through an authorized agent.[23]



Page 2

Officers. It is sufficient for a signature to be made for an officer by another in the officer's presence and at his direction.[24]

[FN1] U.S.Patterson v. Leyden, 947 F. Supp. 1211 (N.D. Ill. 1996). La.Philip Werlein, Ltd. v. Daniels, 538 So. 2d 722 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989), writ denied, 543 So. 2d 21 (La. 1989). Miss.Jones v. Minton, 244 Miss. 354, 141 So. 2d 564 (1962). Nev.Lukey v. Smith, 77 Nev. 402, 365 P.2d 487 (1961). [FN2] Neb.Graff v. Graff, 179 Neb. 345, 138 N.W.2d 644 (1965). Tenn.Stoots v. State, 205 Tenn. 59, 325 S.W.2d 532 (1959). Ratification Requirement of ratification of a signature executed by another. La.Philip Werlein, Ltd. v. Daniels, 538 So. 2d 722 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989), writ denied on other grounds, 543 So. 2d 21 (La. 1989); Kobuszewski v. Scriber, 518 So. 2d 524, 5 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1058 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987). Ill.Logan v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 61 Ill. App. 3d 770, 18 Ill. Dec. 931, 378 N.E.2d 395 (3d Dist. 1978). Md.Fisher v. McGuire, 282 Md. 507, 385 A.2d 211 (1978). [FN3] Fla.State v. Hickman, 189 So. 2d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1966). La.Nationwide Finance Co. of Gretna v. Pitre, 243 So. 2d 326 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971). [FN4] Ark.Spicer v. Colonial Penn Life Ins. Co., 248 Ark. 12, 449 S.W.2d 704 (1970). Ind.James v. State ex rel. Com'r of Motor Vehicles, 475 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1985); Kolar v. City of La Porte, 136 Ind. App. 199, 198 N.E.2d 878 (Div. 2 1964). [FN5] Tenn.Stoots v. State, 205 Tenn. 59, 325 S.W.2d 532 (1959). Acceptance of benefits Ga.Ferguson v. Golf Course Consultants, Inc., 243 Ga. 112, 252 S.E.2d 907 (1979). [FN6] Tenn.Stoots v. State, 205 Tenn. 59, 325 S.W.2d 532 (1959). [FN7] Ky. Prichard v. Kitchen, 242 S.W.2d 988 (Ky. 1951); Widick v. Pursifull, 299 Ky. 773, 187



Page 3

S.W.2d 447 (1945). La.Coats v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 174 La. 503, 141 So. 41 (1932). [FN8] Ark.Spicer v. Colonial Penn Life Ins. Co., 248 Ark. 12, 449 S.W.2d 704 (1970). La.White v. Batson, 317 So. 2d 205 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975), writ denied on other grounds, 320 So. 2d 915 (La. 1975). [FN9] Mass.Gardner v. Gardner, 59 Mass. 483, 5 Cush. 483, 1850 WL 4460 (1850). [FN10] La.Morlet v. Maus, 170 So. 392 (La. Ct. App., Orleans 1936). Wyo.Rowray v. Casper Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n, 48 Wyo. 290, 45 P.2d 7 (1935). [FN11] U.S.United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Banco Suizo-Panameno, S. A., 422 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1970) . [FN12] N.C.Sellers v. Sellers, 98 N.C. 13, 3 S.E. 917 (1887). [FN13] Wis.McAbee v. Gerarden, 187 Wis. 399, 204 N.W. 484 (1925). Touching pen and making mark Person authorizing another in his presence to sign instrument for him and touching pen and making his mark makes signer's act his own. Ga.East Point Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 46 Ga. App. 361, 167 S.E. 787 (1933). [FN14] Ga.East Point Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 46 Ga. App. 361, 167 S.E. 787 (1933). Ind.Coates v. State, 650 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995). Charge held not misleading A charge that person authorizing another in his presence to sign instrument for him and touching pen and making his mark makes such other's act his own was held not erroneous, as misleading jury to believe that person authorizing signing must touch pen. Ga.East Point Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 46 Ga. App. 361, 167 S.E. 787 (1933). [FN15] Cal.Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal. App. 2d 815, 167 P.2d 523 (3d Dist. 1946). Request or authorization to sign made by telephone Cal.Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal. App. 2d 815, 167 P.2d 523 (3d Dist. 1946). [FN16] Ala.Wright v. Forgy, 126 Ala. 389, 28 So. 198 (1900).



Page 4

Ky.Slater v. Hatfield, 195 Ky. 281, 242 S.W. 618 (1922). [FN17] Ala.Hamilton v. Adams, 214 Ala. 440, 108 So. 1 (1926). [FN18] Ala.Hamilton v. Adams, 214 Ala. 440, 108 So. 1 (1926). [FN19] Ala.Mayhall v. Hyde, 22 Ala. App. 109, 113 So. 490 (1927). [FN20] Vt.Haven v. Hobbs, 1 Vt. 238, 1828 WL 1137 (1828). [FN21] Ind.Crow v. Carter, 5 Ind. App. 169, 31 N.E. 937 (1892). [FN22] Ind.Crow v. Carter, 5 Ind. App. 169, 31 N.E. 937 (1892). [FN23] Okla.State ex rel. Nesbitt v. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, 1966 OK 76, 414 P.2d 281 (Okla. 1966). Tex.In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. 1998), reh'g overruled on other grounds, (Feb. 4, 1999) and reh'g of cause overruled on other grounds, (Feb. 4, 1999); 1st Coppell Bank v. Smith, 742 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. App. Dallas 1987). [FN24] Ind.Thomas v. State, 562 N.E.2d 43 (Ind. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1990). Ky.Pardue v. Webb, 253 Ky. 838, 70 S.W.2d 665 (1934). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 13 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 14. Mode of affixing West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1, 2 Generally, in the absence of a statute otherwise providing, a signature may be affixed by writing by hand, by printing, by stamping, or by various other means. In the absence of a statute prescribing the method of affixing a signature, it may be affixed in many different ways.[1] It may be written by hand,[2] printed,[3] stamped,[4] typewritten,[5] engraved,[6] photographed,[7] or cut from one instrument and attached to another.[8] A signature lithographed on an instrument by a party may be sufficient for the purpose of signing it,[9] and it is immaterial with what kind of an instrument a signature is made.[10] Facsimile signature. A facsimile signature of a person may be a genuine signature,[11] so long as they are placed on document by signer himself or at his direction.[12] Signature with lead pencil. A signature with a lead pencil may be sufficient.[13] Official signatures. Under some circumstances, the typewritten name of an officer on an official document is not sufficient to constitute a signature,[14] nor is the use of a facsimile signature produced by a rubber stamp.[15] However, under some circumstances, an officer may sign by means of a facsimile signature,[16] an autographed signature stamp,[17] a rubber stamp,[18] or a typewriter.[19]

[FN1] Fla.State v. Hickman, 189 So. 2d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1966). Ind. State v. Schell, 248 Ind. 183, 224 N.E.2d 49 (1967); Coates v. State, 650 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995). La.Commerce Loan v. Howard, 82 So. 2d 487 (La. Ct. App., Orleans 1955).



Page 2

N.D.State v. Obrigewitch, 356 N.W.2d 105 (N.D. 1984). Mechanical reproduction N.C.State v. Watts, 289 N.C. 445, 222 S.E.2d 389 (1976). Importance of method "The method of affixing the signature would not seem important, if the intention is that it constitute the true signature of the maker." D.C.McGrady v. Munsey Trust Co., 32 A.2d 106 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1943). Requirement that instrument be "signed" Under a statute requiring that an instrument shall be signed, "'signing' does not necessarily mean a written signature, as distinguished from a signature by mark, by print, by stamp, or by the hand of another," notwithstanding a statutory provision that, when the written signature of a person is required by law, it shall always be the proper handwriting of such person, or, in case he is unable to write, his proper mark. Mass. Assessors of Boston v. Neal, 311 Mass. 192, 40 N.E.2d 893 (1942); Finnegan v. Lucy, 157 Mass. 439, 32 N.E. 656 (1892). [FN2] U.S.Carna v. Bessemer Cement Co., 558 F. Supp. 706, 35 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1410 (W.D. Pa. 1983). Wash.City of Seattle v. Sage, 11 Wash. App. 481, 523 P.2d 942 (Div. 1 1974). Individual authorization required Miss.Jones v. Minton, 244 Miss. 354, 141 So. 2d 564 (1962). [FN3] U.S.Roberts v. Johnson, 212 F.2d 672 (10th Cir. 1954). Ga.Katz v. Teicher, 98 Ga. App. 842, 107 S.E.2d 250 (1959). Ky.Blackburn v. City of Paducah, 441 S.W.2d 395 (Ky. 1969). Printed handwriting of signer Mich.People ex rel. Wright v. Kelly, 294 Mich. 503, 293 N.W. 865 (1940). Printing with intent to give authenticity to instrument N.Y.People v. Berman, 197 N.Y.S.2d 346 (Gen. Sess. 1960). [FN4] Ill.Estate of Zander v. Illinois Dept. of Public Aid, 242 Ill. App. 3d 774, 183 Ill. Dec. 233, 611 N.E.2d 86 (4th Dist. 1993). Ind.Coates v. State, 650 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995).



Page 3

Md.Plemens v. Didde-Glaser, Inc., 244 Md. 556, 224 A.2d 464, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1017 (1966). N.J.J. D. Loizeaux Lumber Co. v. Davis, 41 N.J. Super. 231, 124 A.2d 593 (App. Div. 1956). Tex.In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 20 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App. El Paso 2000); Estes v. State, 484 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Parsons v. State, 429 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968). Wash.City of Seattle v. Sage, 11 Wash. App. 481, 523 P.2d 942 (Div. 1 1974). Rubber stamp Cal.Weiner v. Mullaney, 59 Cal. App. 2d 620, 140 P.2d 704 (2d Dist. 1943). D.C.McGrady v. Munsey Trust Co., 32 A.2d 106 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1943). Ky.Blackburn v. City of Paducah, 441 S.W.2d 395 (Ky. 1969). Rubber stamp endorsement held not signature U.S.Elmer Fox & Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York, 274 F. Supp. 235 (D. Colo. 1967). [FN5] Cal.Gold Seal Productions v. R. K. O. Radio Pictures, 134 Cal. App. 2d 843, 286 P.2d 954 (2d Dist. 1955). Ky.Blackburn v. City of Paducah, 441 S.W.2d 395 (Ky. 1969). [FN6] N.J.J. D. Loizeaux Lumber Co. v. Davis, 41 N.J. Super. 231, 124 A.2d 593 (App. Div. 1956). Wash.City of Seattle v. Sage, 11 Wash. App. 481, 523 P.2d 942 (Div. 1 1974). [FN7] U.S.Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, 79 F. Supp. 117 (S.D. Cal. 1948), judgment vacated on other grounds, 89 F. Supp. 962 (S.D. Cal. 1950), order rev'd on other grounds 188 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1951). Cal.Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal. App. 2d 815, 167 P.2d 523 (3d Dist. 1946). Okla.Boyer v. State, 68 Okla. Crim. 220, 97 P.2d 779 (1939); Moss v. Arnold, 63 Okla. Crim. 343, 75 P.2d 491 (1938). S.C.Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416 (1938). [FN8] U.S.Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, 79 F. Supp. 117 (S.D. Cal. 1948), judgment vacated on other grounds, 89 F. Supp. 962 (S.D. Cal. 1950), order rev'd on other grounds, 188 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1951). Ind.Kolar v. City of La Porte, 136 Ind. App. 199, 198 N.E.2d 878 (Div. 2 1964). [FN9] Ga.Katz v. Teicher, 98 Ga. App. 842, 107 S.E.2d 250 (1959).



Page 4

Okla.Boyer v. State, 68 Okla. Crim. 220, 97 P.2d 779 (1939); Moss v. Arnold, 63 Okla. Crim. 343, 75 P.2d 491 (1938). [FN10] U.S. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 6 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1329 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 723 F.2d 238, 5 Int'l Trade Re. (BNA) 1616, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 401 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. granted in part on other grounds, 471 U.S. 1002, 105 S. Ct. 1863, 85 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1985) and decision rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538, 7 Int'l Trade Re. (BNA) 2057, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 368 (1986). Okla.Boyer v. State, 68 Okla. Crim. 220, 97 P.2d 779 (1939); Moss v. Arnold, 63 Okla. Crim. 343, 75 P.2d 491 (1938). S.C.Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416 (1938). [FN11] Ariz.Maricopa County v. Osborn, 60 Ariz. 290, 136 P.2d 270 (1943). D.C.McGrady v. Munsey Trust Co., 32 A.2d 106 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1943). Ohio State ex rel. Drucker v. Reichle, 52 Ohio L. Abs. 94, 81 N.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1948). Okla.Boyer v. State, 68 Okla. Crim. 220, 97 P.2d 779 (1939); Moss v. Arnold, 63 Okla. Crim. 343, 75 P.2d 491 (1938). S.C.Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416 (1938). [FN12] Tex.In re Barber, 960 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1997), mandamus conditionally granted on other grounds, 982 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. 1998), reh'g overruled on other grounds, (Feb. 4, 1999) and reh'g of cause overruled on other grounds, (Feb. 4, 1999). [FN13] Mo.Kleine v. Kleine, 281 Mo. 317, 219 S.W. 610, 8 A.L.R. 1335 (1920). [FN14] Okla. State ex rel. Independent School Dist. No. One of Tulsa County v. Williamson, 1960 OK 126, 352 P.2d 394 (Okla. 1960). Pa.Sechrist v. York Rys., 26 Pa. Dist. 658, 1917 WL 4772 (Pa. C.P. 1917). [FN15] OhioState ex rel. Drucker v. Reichle, 52 Ohio L. Abs. 94, 81 N.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1948). [FN16] Ariz.Maricopa County v. Osborn, 60 Ariz. 290, 136 P.2d 270 (1943). D.C.McGrady v. Munsey Trust Co., 32 A.2d 106 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1943). Ill. Estate of Zander v. Illinois Dept. of Public Aid, 242 Ill. App. 3d 774, 183 Ill. Dec. 233, 611 N.E.2d 86 (4th Dist. 1993). Ind.James v. State ex rel. Com'r of Motor Vehicles, 475 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1985).



Page 5

S.C.Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416 (1938). Uniform Facsimile Signatures of Public Officials Act Any authorized officer, after filing with the [Secretary of State] his manual signature certified by him under oath, may execute or cause to be executed with a facsimile signature in lieu of his manual signature: (a) any public security, provided that at least one signature required or permitted to be placed thereon shall be manually subscribed, and (b) any instrument of payment. Upon compliance with this Act by the authorized officer, his facsimile signature has the same legal effect as his manual signature. Unif. Facsimile Signatures of Public Officials Act 2. [FN17] Ind.Coates v. State, 650 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995). S.C.Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416 (1938). [FN18] D.C.McGrady v. Munsey Trust Co., 32 A.2d 106 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1943). N.M.Costilla Estates Development Co. v. Mascarenas, 33 N.M. 356, 267 P. 74 (1927). Okla.Boyer v. State, 68 Okla. Crim. 220, 97 P.2d 779 (1939); Moss v. Arnold, 63 Okla. Crim. 343, 75 P.2d 491 (1938). Tex. Kemp v. State, 861 S.W.2d 44 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1993), petition for discretionary review refused on other grounds, (Jan. 26, 1994). [FN19] D.C.Packard v. U.S., 77 A.2d 19 (Mun. Ct. App. D.C. 1950). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 14 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 15. Evidence West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1 There is a presumption that a written signature on an instrument was written by the purported signer. The genuineness of a signature may be proved by evidence. There is a presumption that a written signature on an instrument was written by the purported signer,[1] and the act of signing a person's name to an instrument raises the presumption of the party's intent to authenticate the instrument.[2] However, where purported signer has died or become incompetent before proof is required there is no presumption of genuineness.[3] Admissibility. The appearance of the writing of a signature may be considered in determining its genuineness.[4] The fact that a signature appears to be written with pen and ink is some evidence as to its genuineness.[5] Evidence that a purported signer could not write is admissible to show that the purported signature is a forgery.[6] Where the signature of a subscriber to an instrument was written by a third person, parol admissions of the party whose name is signed are admissible to show that it was done by his authority.[7] A signature by mark may be proved to be genuine by testimony of witnesses to the making of the mark.[8] An instrument executed by a mark may be proved by the testimony of one who witnessed it, whether or not the person was named as a subscribing witness.[9] Testimony that the purported signer habitually used a mark instead of an ordinary signature is admissible to prove the genuineness of a signature by mark.[10] Testimony that establishes some peculiarity in the mark itself,[11] or evidence that the mark was acknowledged by the maker as his mark,[12] is admissible to prove the genuineness of a signature by mark. When a signature by mark is not attested to in the manner required by statute, other evidence of the execution of the mark may be offered for the purpose of proving its genuineness.[13] Weight and sufficiency. The mere fact that a person's name is attached to an instrument is not sufficient proof of its genuineness.[14] Circumstantial evidence that a party could write and was always accustomed to writing his or her name is not sufficient to overcome direct and positive evidence that in a particular instance the signing was by mark.[15] Under some circumstances, an oath by a purported signer verifying an instrument containing a mark and the certificate of the duly authorized officer before whom the oath was taken may be sufficient proof of the genuine-



Page 2

ness of the mark.[16] Where the ultimate question is the genuineness of a signature by mark and a subscribing witness is out of the state, proof of the handwriting of such witness has been regarded as sufficient.[17] A like rule has been applied when the subscribing witnesses to a signature by a mark is dead.[18] However, that proof of the handwriting of such witness might not be sufficient if the witness is within the state.[19] Denial of the genuineness of a signature by a subscribing witness is not conclusive evidence that the signature is not genuine or sufficient,[20] and a question of fact remains as to whether or not the signature is genuine or sufficient.[21]

[FN1] Ohio Dryden v. Dryden, 86 Ohio App. 3d 707, 621 N.E.2d 1216 (4th Dist. Adams County 1993); Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App. 2d 223, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 227, 382 N.E.2d 1179, 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1181 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1978). Pa.Triffin v. Dillabough, 448 Pa. Super. 72, 670 A.2d 684, 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 499 (1996), appeal granted, 544 Pa. 685, 679 A.2d 230 (1996) and aff'd, 552 Pa. 550, 716 A.2d 605, 36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 255 (1998). Exception for deceased persons Okla.A. L. Jackson Chevrolet, Inc. v. Oxley, 1977 OK 85, 564 P.2d 633, 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1117 (Okla. 1977). Presumptive evidence of due subscription A signature in which the signer used the initials of his Christian name was presumptive evidence of subscription. Ind.Payne v. June, 92 Ind. 252, 1883 WL 5758 (1883). [FN2] Ky.Ledford v. Hubbard, 219 Ky. 9, 292 S.W. 345 (1926). [FN3] Okla.A. L. Jackson Chevrolet, Inc. v. Oxley, 1977 OK 85, 564 P.2d 633, 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1117 (Okla. 1977). [FN4] Neb.Burr v. Finch, 91 Neb. 417, 136 N.W. 72 (1912). [FN5] Neb.Burr v. Finch, 91 Neb. 417, 136 N.W. 72 (1912). [FN6] Ga.Hansen v. Owens, 132 Ga. 648, 64 S.E. 800 (1909). Other matters pertaining to forgery Okla.White v. City Nat. Bank of Norman, 1954 OK 44, 271 P.2d 713 (Okla. 1954). [FN7] Minn.Pottgieser v. Dorn, 16 Minn. 204, 16 Gil. 180, 1870 WL 2380 (1870).



Page 3

Tex.Houston & T.C.R. Co. v. Chandler, 51 Tex. 416, 1879 WL 7688 (1879). [FN8] N.C.Devereux v. McMahon, 108 N.C. 134, 12 S.E. 902 (1891). [FN9] S.C.Matheson v. Caribo, 117 S.C. 291, 109 S.E. 102, 17 A.L.R. 1263 (1921). [FN10] N.C.Devereux v. McMahon, 108 N.C. 134, 12 S.E. 902 (1891). [FN11] N.C.State v. Byrd, 93 N.C. 624, 1885 WL 1753 (1885). [FN12] N.C.State v. Byrd, 93 N.C. 624, 1885 WL 1753 (1885). [FN13] Ark.Henry v. Union Sawmill Co., 171 Ark. 1023, 287 S.W. 203 (1926). [FN14] Ariz.Lally v. Cash, 18 Ariz. 574, 164 P. 443 (1917). Mo.Barnes v. Bank of Bourbon, 619 S.W.2d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1981). [FN15] Ga.Neill v. Hill, 32 Ga. App. 381, 123 S.E. 30 (1924). Signature by fingerprints Pa.In re Olevich's Estate, 14 Fiduc. Rep. 265 (Pa. Orphans' Ct. 1960). [FN16] Nev.State v. Depoister, 21 Nev. 107, 25 P. 1000 (1891). [FN17] S.C.Shiver v. Johnson, 4 S.C.L. 397, 2 Brev. 397, 1810 WL 266 (Const. Ct. App. 1810). [FN18] La.Chaffe v. Cupp, 5 La. Ann. 684, 1850 WL 3899 (1850). [FN19] S.C.Shiver v. Johnson, 4 S.C.L. 397, 2 Brev. 397, 1810 WL 266 (Const. Ct. App. 1810). [FN20] S.C.Matheson v. Caribo, 117 S.C. 291, 109 S.E. 102, 17 A.L.R. 1263 (1921). Tex.Southwest Bitulithic Co. v. Martinez, 135 Tex. 347, 143 S.W.2d 116 (Comm'n App. 1940). [FN21] Tex. Southwest Bitulithic Co. v. Martinez, 135 Tex. 347, 143 S.W.2d 116 (Comm'n App. 1940). Preponderance of evidence Okla.Canning v. Bennett, 1952 OK 191, 206 Okla. 675, 245 P.2d 1149 (1952). Evidence held sufficient U.S.Gilbert v. Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co., 345 F. Supp. 732 (E.D. Pa. 1972), aff'd, 481 F.2d 1398 (3d Cir. 1973). IowaKaufman v. Zimmer, 287 N.W.2d 884 (Iowa Ct. App. 1979). Authenticity may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence



Page 4

Va.Bain v. Com., 215 Va. 89, 205 S.E.2d 641 (1974). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 15 END OF DOCUMENT



Page 1

Corpus Juris Secundum Database updated May 2010 Signatures David M. Hastings, J.D. II. Requisites and Validity Topic Summary References 16. Burden of proof West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Signatures 1 One who alleges want of due signature has the burden to prove that claim. Where there is a presumption that an instrument was duly signed, one who alleges want of due signature has the burden to prove that claim.[1] If party seeking to recover on an instrument places it in evidence and the adverse party introduces no evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of the signature, the party claiming under signature will prevail.[2] Furthermore, if an adverse party merely makes a general denial at trial as to signature's validity but fails to introduce any other evidence to rebut the presumption of authenticity which attaches to a signature, then the party claiming under the signature will prevail.[3] However, if a party denying a signature's validity introduces evidence sufficient to overcome the rebuttable presumption of validity, then the case will be tried upon all of the evidence introduced at trial, with the burden of proof being upon the party claiming under the signature to establish its effectiveness by a preponderance of evidence. [4] When a signature is shown not to be in the handwriting of the person whose signature it purports to be, the law will not presume other affirmative facts which would have made the signature binding, because the existence of such facts is a matter of proof.[5] Where a purported signature is in the hand of one other than the purported signer, one who alleges the effectiveness of the signature has the burden to prove that it was written under such circumstances as to show the intent of the purported signer to authenticate the instrument.[6] A signature by mark must be proved as any other signature,[7] and, ordinarily, one who alleges a signature by mark has the burden of proof.[8]

[FN1] Ohio Dryden v. Dryden, 86 Ohio App. 3d 707, 621 N.E.2d 1216 (4th Dist. Adams County 1993). Va.Virginia Nat. Bank v. Holt, 216 Va. 500, 219 S.E.2d 881, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 440 (1975). [FN2] Ohio Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App. 2d 223, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 227, 382 N.E.2d 1179, 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1181 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1978).



Page 2

[FN3] Ohio Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App. 2d 223, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 227, 382 N.E.2d 1179, 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1181 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1978). [FN4] Ohio Bates & Springer, Inc. v. Stallworth, 56 Ohio App. 2d 223, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 227, 382 N.E.2d 1179, 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1181 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1978). Va.Virginia Nat. Bank v. Holt, 216 Va. 500, 219 S.E.2d 881, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 440 (1975). [FN5] Ga.Hansen v. Owens, 132 Ga. 648, 64 S.E. 800 (1909). UtahSalt Lake City v. Hanson, 19 Utah 2d 32, 425 P.2d 773 (1967). [FN6] Ky.Ledford v. Hubbard, 219 Ky. 9, 292 S.W. 345 (1926). Md.Plemens v. Didde-Glaser, Inc., 244 Md. 556, 224 A.2d 464, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1017 (1966). [FN7] OhioPeople's Bank & Sav. Co. v. Cereguti, 4 Ohio App. 1, 25 Ohio C.D. 393, 1914 WL 356 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1914), aff'd, 92 Ohio St. 525, 112 N.E. 1086 (1915). [FN8] Ky. Conley v. Coburn, 297 Ky. 292, 179 S.W.2d 668 (1944); Com. v. Campbell, 20 Ky. L. Rptr. 54, 45 S.W. 89 (Ky. 1898). Ohio People's Bank & Sav. Co. v. Cereguti, 4 Ohio App. 1, 25 Ohio C.D. 393, 1914 WL 356 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1914), aff'd, 92 Ohio St. 525, 112 N.E. 1086 (1915). Westlaw. 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. CJS SIGNAT 16 END OF DOCUMENT


Documents

CJS on Signatures