14 Corpus Juris Secundum (1939)

CERTIFICATE.

A certificate in its most general and widest sense has been defined as meaning a certain assurance of that which it states; a declaration in writing; an authoritative attestation; a writing giving assurance that a thing has or has not been done, that a fact exists or does not exist; a written testimony to the truth of any fact; the usual and customary method to indicate what has or has not been done.

More specifically, the word has been defined as meaning a documentary declaration regarding facts from the public authority, as an attestation of facts contained in a public record; a statement in writing by a person having a public or official status concerning some matter within his knowledge or authority; a writing by which an officer or other person bears testimony that a fact has or has not taken place; a writing so signed and authenticated as to be legal evidence; also a writing made in any court and properly authenticated to give notice to another court of anything done therein.

Strictly speaking, a certificate by a public officer may be said to be a statement written and signed, but not necessarily nor usually sworn to, which is by law made evidence of the truth of the facts stated for all or for certain purposes; and, popularly, the term has been held to import a completed document; a document in which the officer issuing the same purports to state on his own authority that certain acts have been done; the statement of some fact, in writing, signed by the party certifying; and that the certificate testifies to the truth. Official certificates must be duly authenticated or they cannot serve that purpose, although, in the absence of special requirements, no set form is necessary.

CERTIFY.

Present Tense

To attest, give certain knowledge or information of, make evident, make known or established, testify or vouch for the truth of a fact or facts, or to testify to, or vouch for, a thing, either in writing or orally as to its truth or excellence. As ordinarily used with reference to documents or papers, the word has been defined as meaning to affirm or assert in writing the correctness or identity of the designated instrument, or to make a declaration about in writing, under hand or hand and seal.

Phrases: “Certify and return”, “certify under his hand and seal”, and “chief engineer should ‘certify.’”

Certified

The past tense and past participle of the verb “certify,” which, in a particular connection, has been held to include the idea of “filed.”

7 Corpus Juris Secundum (1937)

AUTHENTIC. Genuine; true; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested; competent, credible, and reliable as evidence.

Authentic act. In the civil law, an act which has been executed before a notary or public officer authorized to execute such functions, or which is testified by a public seal, or has been rendered public by the authority of a competent magistrate, or which is certified as being a copy of a public register.

In the past tense, acknowledged or proved for record attested and also, sometimes, executed.

Phrases "Authenticate an instrument;” also "authenticated as required by law,” "authenticated as required by statute,” "authenticated by the proper officer,” "authenticated by the signature of the judge presiding,” "authenticated copies,” "authenticated copy thereof,” "authenticated report,” "duly authenticated,” legally authenticated,” "properly authenticated,” and "signed and duly authenticated or acknowledged.”

36 Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure (1910)

SIGNATURE

I. DEFINITION

The verb “to sign” is defined “to affix a signature to; to ratify by hand or seal; to subscribe in one’s own handwriting.” A “signature” has been defined as “a sign, stamp, or mark impressed, as by a seal, especially the name of any person written with his own hand, employed to signify that the writing which precedes accords with his wishes or intention; a sign manual.”

II. NECESSITY.

It is not essential to the validity of a sealed bond that the obligor sign it; sealing it is sufficient. A deed, however, must be signed. When a signature is essential to the validity of an instrument, an acknowledgment is not a substitute therefor, nor is it proof that it has been signed.

III. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY.

A. In General. Signatures adopted by persons are sufficient to give validity to instruments even though they are illegible or defective; or contain only the christian name of the person signing; or made with a lead pencil; or typewritten, or printed; or even cut from another instrument and attached to another. And it is sufficient signature to satisfy the statute of frauds if a contract be signed by both parties separately upon separate sheets, or if a telegram be sent accepting an offer that has been made; but a resolution of a corporation accepting a lease has been held not sufficient to satisfy the statute requiring a signature. So too one signature may be sufficient for two instruments which appear on the same sheet.

B. Location of Signature. When a signature is essential to the validity of an instrument it is not necessary that the signature appear at the end of the instrument. If the name of the party whose signature is required is written by him in any part of the instrument, for the purpose of authenticating it, it is a sufficient signature. But when a statute requires that an instrument be subscribed, the writing of the name in the body of the instrument is not sufficient. A signature placed between two parts of an instrument will apply to the whole instrument if it is shown to have been so intended. Where a person intends to sign as a witness to an instrument, but signs it in the place for the principal to sign, the fact that he signed as a witness may be shown; and where he intends to sign as a principal but signs in the place of a witness, that fact may be shown. The fact that the name of an officer is near the word “countersigned” does not render the signature insufficient.

C. Use of Initials and Abbreviations. Instruments are properly signed, although only the initial letter of christian names, with the surname written in full, are used. And where a person abbreviates his christian name he is estopped to deny the validity of his signature. The initials alone, if used as a signature, are as efficacious as a signature as the whole name at length. So too is their use sufficient under the statute of frauds.

D. By Hand of Party. Where the maker of an instrument in signing his name is assisted by another’s guiding or steadying his hand, the signature thus made is the act of the maker and not the act of the person assisting him.

E. By Hand of Another. Where a person’s name is signed for him at his direction and in his presence by another, the signature becomes his own, and is sufficient to give the same validity to an instrument as though written by the person himself. The signature is sufficient, although it purports to have been signed by another; thus the form, “A. for B., at his request,” is sufficient. It is not a sufficient signature, however, where the name of the person whose signature is required is written in that person’s absence, although the writing of his name may have been authorized by him, unless he subsequently acknowledges and adopts the signature as his own.

35 Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure (1910)

SEALS

1. DEFINITIONS.

   At common law a seal is an impression upon wax or wafer, or some other tenacious substance capable of being impressed. By statute a seal is a particular sign, made to attest in the most formal manner the execution of an instrument. A public seal has been defined as an impression made of some device, by means of a piece of metal or other hard substance, kept and used by public authority.

2. NECESSITY, USE, AND EFFECT.

   Seals are of great antiquity, their use beginning at a time when writing was not common but when every individual possessed a coat-of-arms or other distinctive device, and in early times much importance attached to their employment, as a means of distinguishing the person. The effect of a seal being affixed to a private written instrument is to convert it into a specialty, importing a consideration, and rendering unnecessary the recital of a consideration. However, with the growth of education, the signature to an instrument has now become more important than the seal, and in some jurisdictions seals have been entirely abolished by statute, while in others the decided tendency of modern decisions is to minimize if not to entirely do away with the old distinctions between sealed and unsealed instruments.

3. WHAT LAW GOVERNS.

   As the validity of a seal directly affects the obligation of a contract, it is to be tested by the lex loci contractus; but the sufficiency of the seal of an instrument executed in one state but contemplating performance in another state is to be tested and governed by the laws of the latter state; and where the remedy upon a written instrument depends upon the question whether it is sealed or unsealed, it is well settled that the sufficiency of the seal is to be tested by the lex fori and not the lex loci contractus.

4. REQUISITES.

   1. In General. It was the early rule at common law that there must be an actual sealing, consisting of the impression of an individual mark or device upon wax or other adhesive substance; but the common-law rule has been considerably modified by both decision and statute, and sealing has become constructive rather than actual; being considered largely a matter of intention. At the present time, although the use of the common-law seal is permissible, the use of wax or other adhesive substance is not required; both written and printed seals are valid; the seal need not be of any particular form or figure; and some courts have gone to the extent of holding that any mark, blot, or flourish is sufficient, provided it is intended as a seal.

   2. Different Forms Considered. By the weight of authority, there is a sufficient sealing when there is affixed to the signature a scroll, the word “Seal,” the letters “L. S.,” a scroll containing either the word “Seal” or the letters “L. S.,” but in some jurisdictions, it is necessary, when these devices are used instead of actual sealing, that the instrument contain evidence of an intention to seal, while in other jurisdictions this is not necessary.

   3. Time of Sealing. Although it is immaterial that a scrawl seal is printed on the instrument before it is executed, as the party, by signing his name in front of it, adopts such printed device as his seal, yet where the instrument is not sealed at the time of execution, a subsequent sealing will not cure the defect.

   4. Recital in Instrument. Except in cases where a scroll or other substitute is used instead. of the common-law seal, a recital in the body of the instrument or in the attestation clause that the instrument is sealed is not material in determining that fact. The presence of such recital does not change the character of an instrument, to which no seal is affixed, nor its absence, the character of an instrument actually sealed.

5. ADOPTION OF SEALS. Where there are not as many seals as signatures to a written instrument, the seals will be presumed to be those of the parties to whose names they are affixed, and will be held to be the seals of all on proof that they were attached on the authority of all, as, on account of the law permitting one person to adopt the seal of another, it is not necessary that the number of seals equal the number of signatures. Proof that the parties who have not attached seals have adopted the seals which are attached is sufficient, where the parties recite in the instrument that it is executed under their seals, or where there is any contemporaneous writing showing an adoption.

6. EVIDENCE AND QUESTIONS FOR JURY. A presumption of due sealing attaches where the instrument itself purports to be under seal, or where the instrument cannot be produced, and a copy thereof recites that it is under seal and contains appropriate words or letters indicating a seal; and where such presumption attaches, the burden is upon the party objecting to the sufficiency of the instrument to show that it was not sealed at the time of signature; but where the adoption of the seal of one signer by another signer is sought to be shown, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to enforce the instrument as a specialty. In case of the loss of the instrument or of the seal from the instrument, and in the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence of a due sealing is admissible. Whether or not a certain device constitutes a seal is a question of law for the court, but it is for the jury to determine whether the seal was affixed to the instrument, or, having been attached, has since been detached.