
    Allen B. Addison against Daniel White.
    In the summa* h»Ve n0 legal mode of ^Slheisln£*of wwffiS S0tice.ffmu,t£IYe
    This action was brought on a note within the c* summary jurisdiction, given by defendant, t i n i .. , . . ble to -Farmer, who passed to plaintiff. The defendant made his mark, and there was no subscribing witness, so that plaintiff having no other way to prove the note without releasing Parmer, served the defendant with a notice to declare on oath at the trial whether or not be gave this note. As several cases of this kind had been before the Courts, and contradictory decisions had been had thereupon, the presiding Judge refused to oblige the drawer to be sworn,, that it might be brought to this Court, and the point finally settled.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Grimke.

I am of opinion that the act of Assembly creating this summary jurisdiction, is compulsory on the defendant to answer, on notice given, such questions as shall be put to him, provided that the plaintiff cannot prove his case in any other legal way; for instance, if there had been a witness to the note, that witness must have been produced, and the proof of such witness’ handwriting to the note, if dead, would have been sufficient, as has been already decided by this Court. In the present instance, it did not appear that the mark of the defendant could be prored in any other manner but by his own oath ; the nonsuit must therefore be set aside.

Colcock, JYott, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.  