Board of Trustees v. Misenheimer

Citations

• 78 Ill. 22

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — as to handwriting. A witness may have sufficient knowledge of a handwriting to give his opinion as to a disputed signature, although he may never have seen the party write. There are two modes by which a knowledge of the handwriting of another may be acquired, first, by having seen the party write, and secondly, from having seen letters, bills and other documents purporting to be the handwriting of the party, and having afterwards personally communicated with him respecting them, or acted upon them as his, the party having known and acquiesced in such acts, founded upon their genuineness, or by such adoption of them into ordinary business transactions of life as induces a reasonable presumption of their being his own writings.</p> <p>2. But where the witness has no acquaintance with the handwriting of the party until after a particular signature is denied, and he then examines his report as guardian, filed in the county court, and the signature thereto, he will not be competent to give an opinion as to the genuineness of the signature in dispute, his knowledge being derived under circumstances calculated to bias his mind.</p> <p>3. School tbeastjbeb’s bond—liability for releasing debt secured by mortgage. If a school treasurer releases a mortgage given to secure a debt due the school fund of his township, without an order of the board of trustees, or a majority of them, entered upon their journal, and subscribed by their president and clerk, he will be liable upon his official bond for any loss sustained in consequence thereof.</p> <p>4. Ikstiujctions—must be based upon evidence. It is error to give an instruction upon a given state of facts susceptible of definite proof, where there is no evidence tending to prove the same.</p>