Bevan v. Atlanta National Bank

Citations

• 142 Ill. 302
• 31 N.E. 679

Syllabus

<p>1. Promissory note — proof of execution. On the trial of a case upon a note, the execution of which was put in issue, and which purported to be signed by A, as principal, and by B, as surety, against whose estate it was filed, the plaintiff called a witness, and proved by him. the declaration of B, made in her lifetime, that she had assisted A, and did not think she would lose anything by it: Held, that while the evidence was of but little weight, it was competent to be considered by the jury, in connection with other evidence, as showing the relations in which the makers stood toward each other, and as tending to show the assistance spoken of had reference to the note.</p> <p>2. The law is well settled in this State that the genuineness of a signature to a note or other instrument in writing can not be proved or disproved by comparing it with another signature admitted to be genuine.</p> <p>3. Where a witness is called to prove the genuineness of the signature of a party sought to be charged, and is shown, on cross-examination, the signatures of the party on other notes, which the witness has seen executed, and the one in dispute is signed “Alice,” while the others are signed “Allie,” such prior notes are not admissible in evidence by the defendant for any purpose.</p> <p>4. Evidence — latitude of cross-examination. In many cases, in order to ascertain the truth and arrive at a correct result, it is necessary to allow a considerable latitude in the cross-examination of witnesses in order to test the accuracy of their testimony.</p> <p>5. Where a witness called to prove the genuineness of a signature of a party to a note predicates his judgment, in part, upon signatures to other notes which he saw executed by the same party, if the signature to the note in suit differs from that in the other notes the execution of which the witness saw, the defendant will have the right to show that fact on cross-examination, as one proper for the consideration of the jury in det