# Ulmer v. Gentner

> Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · January 8, 1883 · 3 Pennyp. 453

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6401419

## Case

- **Full name:** Ulmer v. Gentner
- **Court:** Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
- **Decided:** January 8, 1883
- **Citations:** 3 Pennyp. 453
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Clark, Gordon, Green, Mercur, Paxson, Sterrett, Trunkey
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6401419

## Opinion text

— Per Curiam :
Under a clear and correct charge the jury found the signature was not a forgery, and that the note was given upon a valid and sufficient consideration. The evidence was amply sufficient to justify the verdict.
We discover no error in the rejection of evidence. Some offered was clearly irrelevant. A magnified drawing of the outer lines of the signature is only the copy of a part thereof, and was clearly inadmissible for the purpose offered. It is not like a photograph of the whole signature. Comparison may be made by the jury between the disputed signature and those of the party well authenticated, and also by witnesses who have knowledge of his handwriting, but this rule does not extend to experts. They may testify whether a signature be forged or simulated, and give their conclusions: Travis v. Brown, 7 Wright, 9 .
Judgment affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6401419. Public record. Not legal advice.