§903 Subscribing Witness's Testimony Unnecessary

• Library: Evidence Restated Deskbook (2021 Ed.)

§903 Subscribing Witness's Testimony Unnecessary

The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by law.

Notes

Missouri caselaw allows authentication of the execution of an instrument through the testimony of a subscribing witness but does not require it except when provided by statute. See Catron v. Catron, 492 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Mo. App. W.D. 1973) (citations omitted) ("[T]he old rule requiring that a subscribing witness must be called to prove the execution of an instrument . . . was later relaxed because the parties had . . . been made competent witnesses. It is now sufficient that the execution of an instrument in writing be established by the testimony of some person familiar with the handwriting of the parties, at least where there is no requirement of proof by subscribing witnesses as in instruments affecting real estate."); see alsoMoss v. Anderson, 7 Mo. 337, 340 (1842) (subscribing witnesses to a deed or conveyance do not need to be called or their absence accounted for unless required by statute).

Thus, unless a statute provides...