Smith v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 594·188 Cal. App. 2d 635·1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 2464
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 1961Civ. No. 19188California431 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duniway, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment against her in an action upon a promissory note. The court found that the signature on the note was not the signature of defendant executor’s decedent, but was a fraudulent writing placed thereon by some person unknown.

Appellant attacks the finding. However, it is fully sustained by the testimony of an expert who described his qualifications at length. Appellant then stipulated that he was qualified. The expert compared the signature with photostats of two exemplars on documents signed by decedent and filed in the United States District Court. (Decedent Ernest Torregano, of whose will the respondent bank is executor, was a practicing attorney.) The note is dated July 28, 1937. The exemplars were dated April 8, 1939, and May 7, 1937. The witness stated “the person who signed” the note “is not the same writing and not the same person who signed” the exemplars.

Appellant claims that respondent’s counsel admitted that the signature was genuine, and that the opinion is worthless because the expert took only 15 minutes, in the courtroom, to compare the signatures, used photostats as exemplars, did not make photographs or photographic enlargements of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.