Essick's Appeal

Citations

• 1 Monag. 588
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1252

Syllabus

<p>On a rule to open a judgment, entered on a judgment note, the defendant testified that his signature to the note was a forgery. His evidence was corroborated by two witnesses who testified that, in their opinion, the signature was not that of the defendant. A witness to the note testified that, when he signed, the defendant’s name was not upon the note. A witness for the plaintiff, the party for whose accommodation the note was given, and who had been convicted of forging another note, testified that the defendant did sign the note and described the time and place. Other witnesses testified that the defendant acknowledged that he had signed the note. The court discharged the rule on the ground that Vue preponderance of the evidence was in favor of the validity of the note. . The testimony was not printed in the paper book of the appellant, on the appeal. Held, that the judgment should be affirmed.</p>