Sec 680

Sealing is a solemn mode of assent adopted at a time when there were many who had property to convey who could not write their names.7 Sealing has been held to be sufficiently performed if the seal be impressed on the document with intent to stamp it, though no impression be left.8 A scroll marked out with a pen, or stamped with a block, has been held in some jurisdictions to be equivalent to a seal;l and for corporations, a distinct impression stamped upon paper has been held adequate.2 Printed fac-similes of corporation seals, however, attached in gross by the ordinary operation of a printing press, have been held not to be technically seals.3 - Two or more parties to a document may join in using a common seal for their signatures, and if this be their intention, the single seal will be sufficient.4 For corporations, sealing is the only mode practicable for the expression of solemn assent, though the corporation may be bound by the action without seal of its directors or other officers duly appointed.5 But there can be no specialty without a seal.6

Sealing is a solemn mode of assent.

1 Harkreader V. Clayton, 56 Miss. 383.

2 Smith V. Bank, 32 Vt. 341; Wheelwright V. Wheelwright, 2 Mass. 452; Black V. Shreve, 13 N. J. Eq. 455; Blight V. Schenck, 10 Penn. St. 213; Harkreader V. Clayton, 56 Miss. 3S3.

3 Millership V. Brookes, 5 H. & N. 797.

4 1 Ch. on Con. 11th Am. ed. 5; Co. Lit. 36 a; Howe V. Dewing, 2 Gray, 476; Gilbert V. Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 43; Simonton's Est., 4 Watts, 180; Firemen's Ins. Co. V. McMillen, 29 Ala. 147; Hagood V. Harley, 8 Rich. 325; Den V. Partee, 2 DeV. & B. 530. The rule of law that a deed cannot be delivered to a party to whom it is made, as an escrow, to be the deed of the obligor only on the condition, and that in such case the delivery is absolute and the condition nugatory, is held in Virginia to be applicable only to the case of deeds which are upon their face complete contracts, requiring nothing but delivery to make them perfect according to the intention of the parties; not to deeds which, upon their face, import that something more is to be done besides delivery to make them competent and perfect contracts according to the intention of the parties. Wendlinger V. Smith, 75 Va. 309.

5 New Jersey State Ordinary V. Thatcher, 41 N. J. L. 403.

6 Regan V. Howe, 121 Mass. 424.

7 Wald's Pollock, 124; Wh. on EV. sec 692.

8 Sandilands in re, L. R. 6 C. P. 411.

Sec 681

When a document recites a seal, and when in other respects it is duly attested and executed, accompanied by transfer of possession, the courts may presume, on slight indications, that a seal which had been attached had fallen off, or had been otherwise effaced.7 The whole question is one of fact, in which the affixing of the seal is to be considered in the light of the extrinsic circumstances.8

Due sealing may be presumed.

1 R. V. St. Paul's Covent Garden, 7 Q. B. 232; Woods V. Banks, 14 N. H. 101; Devling V. Williamson, 9 Watts, 311; Cromwell V. Tate, 7 Leigh, 301; Underwood V. Dollins, 47 Mo. 259. In New York by statute (2 Fay Stat. 13), public seals may be made by a stamp on paper, but private seals "shall be made as heretofore on wafer, wax, or some similar substance.".

2 Davidson V. Cooper, 11 M. & W. 778; Pillow V. Roberts, 13 How. 472; Woodman V. R. R., 50 Me. 549; Hen-dee V. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 381; Curtis V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9; Corrigan V. Falls Co., 3 Halst. Ch. 489.

3 Bates V. R. R., 10 Allen, 251.

4 Ball V. Dunsterville, 4 T. R. 313; Tasker V. Bartlett, 5 Cush. 359; Tuns. ford V. Lead Co., 54 Mo. 426; Leake, 2d ed. 136.

5 Wh. on Ag. sec 59 et seq.; Wh. on EV. sec 694; supra, sec 128 et seq.

6 Ibid.; see Chilton V. People, 66 Ill. 501; supra, sec 134.

7 Wh. on EV. sec 1314; Talbot V. Hod-son, 7 Taunt. 251; Fassett V. Brown, Peake, 23; Burdett V. Spillsbury, 6 M. & G. 386; 10 Cl. & F. 340; Hall V. Bainbridge, 12 Q. B. 699; Sandilands in re, L. R. 6 C. P. 411; Ward V. Lewis, 4 Pick. 518; Vernol V. Vernol, 63 N. Y. 45. See Flowery Mining Co.

V. Mining Co., 16 NeV. 302. Acknowledging and delivering validates a deed, no matter by whom the grantor's name and seal were affixed; and after acknowledgment and delivery he cannot deny his signature and seal. Clough V. Clough, 73 Me. 487, citing Bartlett V. Deake, 100 Mass. 174.

8 Xenos V. Wickham, L. R. 2 H. L. 296.