
    Bridget Meyers, Resp’t, v. Daniel Hunt, Ex’r of Harrison Hunt, Dec’d, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 8, 1892.)
    
    Decedent’s estates—Forgery—Proof op handwriting.
    On the trial of an action on a disputed claim against an estate upon a. note which is claimed to be a forgery, where the executor fails to produce any writing of his testator for the purpose of comparison, and the verdict of the jury is based upon a comparison with a specimen produced by the plaintiff, the opinion of witnesses on the subject is of slight importance, and the verdict will not be disturbed for errors in the admission thereof.
    ■ Appeal from judgment in. favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict.
    This action was commenced by stipulation under the statute providing for a reference of a disputed claim against the estate of a decedent.- The claim is against the estate of Harrison Hunt, deceased, arising on a promissory note for $750, dated April I, 1884. No one knew of this note until after the death of Harrison Hunt, when it was produced by the claimant herein and payment was demanded. There is no testimony whatever of the execution of this note.
    Bridget Meyers, the plaintiff, testifies:
    Q. Do you know the signature of Harrison Hunt when you see it ?
    
      Objected to as incompetent under § 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure; objection overruled; exception taken.
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Whose signature is that on that paper ?
    Objected to as incompetent under, § 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure; objection overruled ; exception taken.
    A. Harrison Hunt’s.
    The only witness to testify further on this subject is Mr. ’Gleason, who testified that he also has a claim against the estate which is disputed, and that plaintiff in this action is his chief witness. Opposed to this is the testimony of Mr. Annan, Mr. Walker, Mr. Field and Mr. Wilson, who all testify that they ar’e familiar with the signature of Harrison Hunt, and that the signature to the note is not in their opinion his signature.
    
      Arthur T. Hoffman (John H Clapp and Jarvis W. Mason, of counsel), for app’lt; Charles H Noxon, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

The executor failed to produce any of decedent’s handwriting to compare with the signature of the note in suit. 'That neglect is most significant; almost an express admission that the note sued upon is genuine. The plaintiff produced one specimen, which the jury compared with the note, and their verdict, based upon that inspection and comparison, cannot be interfered with.

In view of the above the opinion of the witnesses is of slight importance.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., concurs ; Dykman, J., not sitting.  