
    
      Giles, Davis & Hill vs. John C. Mauldin.
    
    Sum. pro. on sealed note. The signature of defendant was proved. The note_ was shown, hy inspection, to be a printed form, with the blanks filled up in writing. No words in the body of the note, such as, witness my hand and seal, indicated that it was intended to be under seal; but a printed [l. s.] appeared opposite defendant’s signature; — The Judge below held that the note was under seal, and this Court refused to disturb his decree.
    
      Before Whitner, J., at Abbeville, Fall Term, 1853.
    Sum. pro. on a sealed note, as follows :
    $28 80 Loundsville, 8. C. UMar.WoA
    
    
      One day after date I promise to pay Giles, Davis & Hill or bearer, Twenty-eight 80-100 Dollars, value received, with interest from the 1st of January last.
    
      JNO. C. MA ULDIN, [L. S.]
    No. Due fJany.
    
    The words in Roman letters were, printed, and so was the [L. S.J at the end of defendant’s signature. The rest of the note was in writing.
    Plain tiff rested his case upon proof of defendant’s signature ; and defendant moved for a non-suit, on the ground, that the note was not under seal. His Honor decreed for plaintiíf; and defendant appealed.
    
      Jones, for the motion,
    cited McKane vs. Miller, 1 McM. 313; Ralph & Co. vs. Gist, 4 McC. 267; O’Cain vs. O’Cain, 1 Strob. 402.
    
      Baskin, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

The appeal in this case, draws in question the correctness of the ruling of the Judge below, on the fact, whether the seal of the note was sufficiently shown.

In the summary process jurisdiction, the decision of the Judge on the facts is regarded as the verdict of the jury. This wbuld be enough for this case. But it may be stated, in vindication of the decision of the Judge below, that this note was printed. So also was the seal [L. S.J This being so, the signature opposite to it is an adoption of it. When the Judge below was satisfied of that fact, there was an end at once of the objection that the note was unsealed.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardi,aw, Frost, Withers, Whitner and Glover, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  