Skip to main content
· 2/26/1917

Seaman v. Husband

Citations

  • 256 Pa. 571
  • 100 A. 941
  • 1917 Pa. LEXIS 661

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Documents—Signature—Forgery — Comparison with admittedly genuine writings.</p> <p>1. Where the genuineness of handwriting is in dispute the jury-are entitled to compare the disputed paper with admittedly genuine writings.</p> <p>Wills — Date of execution — Presumption.</p> <p>2. There is a presumption of fact that a will was executed on the day it bears date. If, however, there is evidence that the will could not have been executed on the date stated therein, but there is competent evidence that it is in the handwriting of the person with whose name it is signed, a verdict upholding the will, will be sustained even though the date was an error.</p> <p>3. At the trial of a feigned issue to determine the validity of a will dated April 6, 1898, the contestant alleged that the will was a forgery; there was evidence that the will was in the handwriting of the testator; one of the witnesses thereto stated that he saw the testator sign the paper and testified that it was not signed upon its date; the trial judge instructed the’ jury that they must find not only that testator wrote and signed the paper in question but that he did so on April 6, 1898, or else their verdict must be for the contestants, unless the testimony of such witness satisfied them that it was not signed on that date. Held, that the question for the jury was whether the paper purporting to be the testator’s will was written and signed by him or was a forgery; that the jury were not bound by the date of the will, and a judgment on a verdict for contestant was reversed.</p> <p>4. Semble, it is not reversible error in a contested will case to charge the jury that “there is a legal presumption in the absence of proof to the contrary that a man would take care of his wife and family in his will.”</p> <p>Witnesses — Handwriting experts — Competency—Act of June 6, 1918, P. L. 451.</p> <p>5. A witness who testified that he had been cashier of a bank for five years and paying teller thirteen years,

Judges: Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.