Wanita Woolen Mills v. Rollins

Citations

• 75 Miss. 253

Syllabus

<p>1. Chanceby Pbacxice. Denial of execution of instruments. Code 1892, ¿1797; lb., ¿1810.</p> <p>Code 1892, ¿ 1797, which provides that “in suits founded on any written instruments set forth in the pleadings, it shall not he necessary to prove the signature or execution thereof, unless the same be specially denied by a plea verified by the oath of the party pleading the same,” is by ¿ 1810, same code, applicable to suits in the chancery court.</p> <p>2. Same. Oath to answer waived. Code 1892, ¿ 534; Jh., ¿ 1797.</p> <p>The statute, code 1892, ¿534, authorizing a complainant to waive oath to answer in chancery, does not affect the requirement of code 1892, ¿ 1797, providing that the signature or execution of written instruments sued upon need not be proved unless denied on oath.</p> <p>3. Same. Instrument sued upon. Presumption.</p> <p>It is presumed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions showing the contrary, that the court rendering a decree thereon had before it the note or instrument sued upon.</p> <p>4. Cobpobatxons. Contracts of.</p> <p>The execution of a written contract by a corporation, apparently signed by its proper official, need not be proved in a suit upon such contract unless such execution be denied on oath.</p>