If a stranger to the contract signs the name of a party to the contract in the presence of such person, and with his authority, this is a sufficient signature.1 Thus where a grantor authorized the acknowledging officer to sign for him, and such signature was made in grantor's presence, it was held to be valid.2 The fact that the party to the contract, at the time of such execution, added that she would have nothing to do with the contract, does not affect its validity where not known to the adversary party.3 A surety, who was not at that time in antagonistic relations with his principal, may sign the name of such principal, and the latter is bound thereby.4 If a party to an instrument affixes his mark thereto after another person has signed his name, in his presence, and by his authority, the instrument is valid, if either form of signature complies with the law. Thus, A signed B's name to an instrument in B's presence, and by B's authority, and B then added his mark. The statute required that a mark must be attested by a witness. No attesting witness signed. Such signature, however, was held to be valid.5 In a written contract which is not required by law to be proven by writing, or to be in writing, one party to a contract may affix the signature of the other party thereto in his presence and at his request.6 If a stranger to a note signs the maker's name thereto in the presence of the maker and at his request, such signature is valid.7 At A's request B wrote A's name to a note and A then made his mark thereto. This was held valid as a signature by A for B, even if A's signature by mark was invalid as not complying with the statutory requirement that A's signature by mark must be attested by a witness who could write.8 The fact that B then signed the note by B's own name as surety for A did not invalidate this mode of signature. Signature by one duly authorized is sufficient whether in the presence of the maker or not.9

8 Shank v. Butsch, 28 Ind. 19; Staples v. Bank, 98 Ky. 451; 33 S. W. 403.

9 Sanborn v. Cole, 63 Vt. 590; 14 L. R. A. 208; 22 Atl. 716.

10Shepard v. Parker, 97 Me. 86; 53 Atl. 879; Alexander v., Hanley, 64 Vt. 361; 24 Atl. 242.

11 Ex parte Miller. 49 Ark. 18; 4 Am. St. Rep. 17; 3 S. W. 883.

12 Sivils v. Taylor, 12 Okla. 47; 69 Pac. 867.

1 Jansen v. McCahill, 22 Cal. 563; 83 Am. Dee. 84; Wyatt v. Guano Co., 144 Ga. 375; 40 S. E. 237; Nye v. Lowry, 82 Ind. 316.

2 Lewis v. Watson, 98 Ala. 479; 39 Am. St. Rep. 82; 22 L. R. A. 297; 13 So. 570.

3 Wyatt v. Guano Co., 114 Ga. 375; 40 S. E. 237.

4 Wright v. Forgy, 126 Ala. 389; 28 So. 198.