## Facts

- John Stewart loaned money to Joseph Stevenson.
- A promissory note for repayment was executed in July 1844 and was offered as the written evidence of Stevenson’s obligation to Stewart.
- Stewart later brought an action to enforce the promissory note against Stevenson.
- Stevenson defended by asserting that his signature on the note was forged and that he had not executed the instrument.
- At trial, a witness, John Cook, testified that he had loaned money to Stevenson in June 1844, shortly before the date of the disputed July 1844 note.
- Stevenson objected to Cook’s testimony on the ground that it was an improper collateral matter and did not bear on whether Stevenson signed the note sued upon.
- The trial court admitted Cook’s testimony and entered judgment for Stewart on the note.
- Stevenson appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, assigning error to the admission of Cook’s testimony.

## Issues

1. In an action on a promissory note where the defendant claims the signature was forged, may the court admit testimony that the defendant borrowed money from another person shortly before the note’s date as circumstantial evidence bearing on whether the note was genuine?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment for Stewart.
- The Court held the trial court did not err in admitting Cook’s testimony about the June 1844 loan.
- The Court treated the testimony as permissible circumstantial proof that could aid the factfinder on the contested question of execution, even though it did not directly prove the signature’s authenticity.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence must bear a reasonable connection to the fact in dispute; matters with no fair relation to the issue should be excluded as merely collateral.
- Circumstantial evidence is admissible when it tends, in a rational way, to make the disputed fact more or less probable, even if it is not direct proof of that fact.
- Surrounding transactions close in time may be received when they form part of a chain of circumstances from which a jury may draw an inference about whether a challenged instrument was executed.
- Once a collateral circumstance clears the threshold of connection to the issue, its force is for the jury to assess, while admissibility is for the court.

## Conclusion

Stevenson v. Stewart upheld a trial court’s choice to admit testimony about a separate loan made to the defendant shortly before the date of a disputed promissory note, reasoning that such near-in-time circumstances could assist the jury in deciding whether the note was actually executed or instead bore a forged signature; the judgment enforcing the note was therefore affirmed.


Stevenson v. Stewart, 11 Pa. 307 (1849)