
    *David Curtis against Azariah Hall. 
    
    on certiorari.
    THIS action was brought upon a bill in the following words, “ On the first day of May next, I promise to to Azariah Hall, or order, the sum of fifty dollars, without defalcation, for value received. Witness my hand and seal, this thirtieth day of December, A. D. eighteen hundred and thirteen. Witness present, Jacob Vanderbelt; and signed David Curtis, (seal.)”
    Proof of blU-
    At the trial, the subscribing witness was called, and he testified ; “ that he saw the defendant sign his name to the said instrument of writing, and heard him admit, that it was his hand-writing ; that he did not see said Curtis seal the said instrument, or hear him acknowledge that he had sealed it, or that it was his seal; that he did not see him deliver it, but that said Hall took it off the table on which Curtis had signed it.” Upon this evidence, the bill was read to the jury, and a verdict rendered for the amount of it, and judgment thereon.
    The only reason assigned for the reversal of the judgment, was: that the bill was not sufficiently proved, and the court erred, in permitting it to be read to the jury.
    
      Maxwell for plaintiff.
    
      Ewing for defendant.
    
      Ewing referred the court to Cro. Eliz. 7 and 1 Bin. 436.
    
      
      
        S. C.post 361. Newbold vs. Lamb, 2 South.446, Ketchum vs. Johnson, 3 Gr. Ch. 370. Sec Patterson vs. Tacker, 4 Hal. 322. Brown vs. Bulkley, 1 McC. 294,
      
    
   Opinion of the Court.

Southard J.

To render an instrument in writing, competent evidence, it is necessary that some proof should be given, from which the jury can legally infer that it was executed by the party.. In this case, the hand-writing and the acknowledgment of the hand-writing, are amply proven. This was prima facie evidence of every thing which appeared upon the face of the instrument, justified its admission, and authorized the jury to find the sealing and delivery ; unless contradicted by some other fact which appeared -before them. The declaration of the witness, he did not see the defendant seal the bill, nor hear him acknowledge'the seal, is not enough for this purpose. He does not expressly say, nor does it necessarily follow, from what he does say, that *the seal was not there, when the bill was signed and acknowledged. Now, if the seal really was there, and the defendant executed the bill, in the manner -detailed by the witness, without alluding at all to the seal, the execution would have bound him. And such, the jury no doubt believed to be, the state of facts ; and if they did so believe, they were right in finding for the plaintiff. ,

In all cases of this kind, before the jury find for the plaintiff, they ought to be satisfied from the evidence, that the seal was upon the instrument, at the time of its execution; that the defendant really executed a writing under seal.

' The admission of this evidence, being the only objection to the judgment, let it be affirmed.  