It is said the burden is upon a party to prove the adoption of another's seal ; and the question of the adoption of a seal has been held to be for the jury ; Yarborough v. Monday, 14 N. C. 420. The same contract may be the specialty of one and the parol agreement of another party to it; Eames v. Preston, 20 Ill. 389; whether a mark or character is a seal depends upon the inten tion of the executant, as shown by the paper; Jacksonville R. & Nay. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514, 16 Sup. Ct. 379, 40 L. Ed. 515.
Whether an instrument be under seal or not is a question of law, to be solved by in spection; Duncan v. Duncan, 1 Watts (Pa.) 325.
It is not necessary to recite in a deed that it is under seal; Frevall v. Fitch, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 325, 34 Am. Dec. 558 ; Richardson v. Scott River W. & M. Co., 22 Cal. 157 ; Eames v. Preston, 20 Ill. 389 ; although the contrary is held in Virginia and Alabama ; Baird v. Blaigrove, 1 Wash. (Va.) 170; Carter & Car ter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140, and is recognized in New Jersey ; Corlies v. Vannote, 16 N. J. L. 324; and in many jurisdictions, conclu sions are expressed as to what language in an instrument is a recognition of the seal, it being held that the use of the tech nical language of specialties is sufficient; Lindsay & Atkinson v. State, 15 Ala. 43; Van Santwood v. Sandford, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 197 ; or if the fact of the seal appears in the attes tation clause ; Burton v. Le Roy, 5 Sawy. 510, Fed. Cas. No. A recital in a bond that it is under seal estops the obligor from denying that it was a sealed instrument; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bender, 124 N. Y. 49, 26 N. E. 345, 11 L. R. A. 708.
Though a contract indicates an intention to contract under seal, if not sealed, it is a simple contract; Simpson v. Ritchie, 110 Me. 299, 86 Atl. 124.
Where an ancient document. (an exemplifi cation of a report of commissioners appointed to fix municipal limits) has a slip for a seal and no seal, it will be presumed that a seal was once there ; 2 M. & Rob. 140; 1 Lewis's Gr. Evid. §. 144.
The word "seal" written or printed within a scroll is held to be a sufficient seal; Hud son v. Poindexter, 42 Miss. 304; Miller v. Binder, 28 Pa. 489; Jackson v. Life Ins. Co., 233 Ill. 161, 84 N. E. 198 ; contra, Jenkins v. Hurt's Com'rs., 2 Rand. (Va.) 446; Merritt
v. Cornell, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 335. A re cital in an instrument that it is sealed, will not make it a specialty; Chilton v. People, 66 Ill. Boothbay v. Giles, 68 Me. 160.
An executory contract under seal, ignorant ly made in pursuance of a parol authority, will be sufficient to maintain an action, the seal being disregarded as mere excess; Jones v. Horner, 60 Pa. 214.
Where a corporation executed a promis sory note, payable to the order of its presi dent, .attaching thereto, before delivery, its corporate seal, it was held that the note was not a negotiable note under the law merchant, but was a specialty ; Coe v. R. Co., 8 Fed. 534. The. Uniform Negotiable Instrument Act pro vides otherwise. The affixing of his private seal by a corporate officer to a contract of the corporation binds the latter only by simple contract ; Bank of the Metropolis v. Guttsch lick, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 19, 10 L. Ed. 335.
In the absence of evidence it will be pre sumed that the seal of a corporation attached to an instrument was attached by authority ; 4 Leg. & Ins. Rep. 107, per Sharswood, J.; where an instrument is executed on behalf of the corporation and is signed by its agent, with the common seal attached, it will be pre sumed, on proof of the signature, that the seal was intended as that of the corporation; Penn Natural Gas. Co. v. Cook, 123 pa. 170, 16 Atl. 762 ; it is prima facie evidence that it was attached by corporate authority ; Kirk patrick v. Milling & Export Co., 135 Fed. 144; it is presumed to be such corporate seal as it purports to be; Boyce v. Gas Coal Co., 37 W. Va. 73, 16 S. E. 501; the seal is prima facie evidence that a contract has been duly entered into. It may be affixed by a less number than was competent to enter into the contract, provided it was done by a legal quo rum ; B. & D. Turnpike Road v. Myers, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 12, 9 Am. Dec. 402, per Gibson, C. J.
The seal of a foreign corporation (the city of London, attached to a proof a deed be fore the Lord Mayor) must be proved; Chew v. Keck, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 163.
Where an affidavit in foreign attachment was sworn to before a mayor in another state, who attached the seal of the city, it was held that proof of the seal was not neces sary; Woods v. Watkins, 40 Pac. 458.