If the impression or mark upon the paper is of such nature as to be recognized as a valid seal it need not be physically affixed or made by the obligor. He may, if he pleases, adopt as his own a seal already on the instrument,1 as where the seal is printed on a blank form.2 If several obligors execute an instrument it is not necessary that each should affix a separate seal.

11 Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 325; 18 So. 870; Cosner v. McCrum, 40 W. Va. 339; 21 S. E. 739; Putney v. Cutler, 54 Wis. 66; 11 N. W. 437.

12Carlile v. People, 27 Colo. 116; 25 Pac. 48.

13 Jacksonville, etc., R. P. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514; Le Roy v. Beard, 8 How. (U. S.) 451 (Wis.) ; San Luis Obispo County v. White, 91 Cal. 432; 24 Pac. 864; 27 Pac. 756; Brown v. Jardhal, 32 Minn. 135; 50 Am. Rep. 560; 19 N. W. 650; Carpenter v. Frazier, 102 Tenn. 462; 52 S. W. 858.

14 Cochran v. Stewart, 57 Minn. 499; 59 N. W. 543; Cook v. Cooper, 59 S. C. 560; 38 S. E. 218; Whitley v. Davis, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 333.

15 Osborn v. Kistler, 35 O. S. 99.

16 Barnard v. Gantz, 140 N. Y. 249; 35 N. E. 430; Lorah v. Niss-ley, 156 Pa. St. 329; 27 Atl. 242; Williams v. Starr, 5 Wis. 534.

17 Such as a dash. Hacker's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 192; 1 L. R. A. 861; 15 Atl. 500.

18 Manning v. Perkins, 86 Me. 419; 29 Atl. 1114.

19 Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 All. (Mass.) 381.

20Beardsley v. Knight, 4 Vt. 471.

21 Providence, etc., Co. v. Engraving Co., 24 R. I. 175; 52 Atl. 804.

1 Lorah v. Nissley, 156 Pa. St. 329; 27 Atl. 242.

2 Osborn v. Kistler, 35 O. S. 99.

Two or more may adopt a common seal if they wish.3 A corporation may adopt such seal as it pleases if it is sufficient in law as the seal of a natural person,4 such as a scroll seal5 or the seal of a natural person.6 So the District of Columbia may adopt the seals of its commissioners.7 In order, however, that this principle applies, the seal already on the instrument must be in fact adopted by the obligor whose seal it is claimed to be.8 Thus a clause in a conveyance under seal whereby the grantee assumes a mortgage is not the specialty of the grantee.9 So a written guaranty of a signature, written on the back of a sealed instrument does not thereby become a sealed guaranty.10 An unsealed addition to a sealed note is not itself under seal.11 If the seal is omitted by accident and the contract is in all other respects duly executed and valid, equity can supply the omission.12 The objection that a sealed contract is not dated is "too frivolous to require consideration."13

3 Ryan v. Cooke, 172 Ill. 302; 50 N. E. 213; affirming 68 Ill. App. 592; Bohannons v. Lewis, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 376; Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 496; Citizens' Building Association v. Cummings, 45 0. S. 664; 16 N. E. 841; Lamb-den v. Sharp, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 224; Rollins v. Humphrey, 98 Wis. 66; 73 N. W. 331.

4 G. V. B. Mining Co. v. Bank, 95 Fed. 23; 36 C. C. A. 633; Blood v. Water Co., 113 Cal. 221; 41 Pac. 1017; 45 Pac. 252; Royal Bank v. Depot Co., 100 Mass. 444; 97 Am. Dec. 115; Alfalfa Irrigation District v. Collins, 46 Neb. 411; 64 N. W. 1086: Thayer v. Mill Co., 31 Or. 437; 51 Pac. 202.

5 Jacksonville, etc., R. R. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514.

6 Phillips v. Coffee, 17 Ill. 154; 63 Am. Dec. 357; Porter v. R. R., 37 Me. 349; Mill Dam Foundery Co. v. Hovey, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 417; Stebbins v. Merritt, 10 Cush.

(Mass.) 27; Tenney v. Lumber Co., 43 N. H. 343; Middlebury Bank v. R. R., 30 Vt. 159.

7 District of Columbia v. Iron Works, 181 U. S. 453.

8 Ridley v. Hightower, 112 Ga. 476; 37 S. E. 733; Hess's Estate, 150 Pa. St. 346; 24 Atl. 676; Taylor v. Forbes's Administrator, 101 Va. 658; sub nomine, Taylor v, Forbes's Administratrix, 44 S. E, 888.

9 Taylor v. Forbes's Administra-tor, 101 Va. 658; sub nomine, Taylor v. Forbes's Administratrix, 44 S. E. 888. (As to the period of limitations.)

10Ridley v. Hightower, 112 Ga. 476; 37 S. E. 733.

11Sanders v. Bagwell, 32 S. C. 238; 7 L. R. A. 743; 10 S. E. 946.

12 Trustees of Wadsworthville Poor School v. Bryson, 34 S. C. 401; 13 S. E. 619.

13 Seigman v. Streeter, 64 N. J. L. 169, 170; 44 Atl. 888.