Pennington v. Baehr

          I. S. Belcher, for the Petitioner, argued that the fac simile, having been printed by direction of the President of the Fund Commissioners, and adopted by him as his signature, was a legal signing of the coupon. He cited Davis v. Shield, 26 Wend. 352; James v. Patton, 6 N.Y. (2 Seld.) 13; Miller v. Pilliton, 4 Edw. 102; Benjamin on Sales, 191-2; 3 Phillips on Ev. (4 Am. ed.), 371; Brown on Stat. of Frauds, sec. 356. He also referred to the custom of signing the coupons of railroad bonds and other bonds, bank notes and the United States legal tender notes by printed fac simile.           Attorney-General Love, for Respondent, contended that to constitute a legal signature, there must be an actual writing of the name of the signer; and he referred to the definitions of the words " signature" and " to sign" in the dictionaries of Webster, Worcester, Bouvier, Wharton and Burrill. A printed fac simile, he said, could be more easily forged than an autograph; and such a signature would be no more protection than no signing at all. He contended that a fac simile could not be adopted as a signature without express authority of law, and that in the instances referred to by counsel for petitioner, the legal tender notes and bank notes, the statute had authorized the use ofthe fac simile.