SC · rules

SCRE 903

Subscribing Witness' Testimony Unnecessary

activein force · 2026-10-02 – presentcompiled-edition

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

statute or by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing.

Note:

This rule adds "by statute" to the federal rule. The law in South Carolina is that the

testimony of a subscribing witness is generally not necessary for authentication. Edgar

v. Brown, 15 S.C.L. (4 McCord) 91 (1827); S.C. Code Ann. § 19-1-120 (1985) (the

absence of a witness to any bond or note shall not be deemed a good cause by any

court for postponing a trial, but the signature may be proved by other testimony); S.C.

Code Ann. § 62-2-503 (Supp. 1993) (Uniform Probate Code's provision for self-proved

wills); §§ 62-3-405 and -406 (Supp. 1993) (requirements of proof of execution when

will not self-proved and submitted for formal probate).

Provenance

Source: www.sccourts.org
Retrieved: 2026-10-02
Edition: supplied-sc-04-print-version-2026-10-02
Content hash: e8c919a7e4d018d832e31934b9b3fdc3e793c97cb87366dbb851671aae9dc7ac

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs