Page images
PDF
EPUB

a memorandum that the condition of the note has been performed.129 It is material, however, to change the statement of the consideration.130

Alteration of Indorsement.

133

§ 1753. It is not material, as we have seen, to strike out an indorsement for collection.1 131 But an indorser is discharged by the striking out of any indorsement prior to his own.132 The holder may, however, convert a blank indorsement into a special one.' But he cannot write over a blank indorsement a waiver of demand or notice, or a guaranty,135 or an agreement to "stand security till paid." Nor can he add the words "without recourse," 137 or strike such words out,138 or change a several indorsement to a joint one. 139

134

" 136

An altered or forged indorsement will not effect a transfer of the paper.140 But it is not a forgery to write the name of a fictitious payee as indorser, where a blank is left for the payee's name.111 If, however, the drawer of a bill forges the payee's indorsement. and it is afterwards accepted by the drawee and paid to the indorsee,

129 Jackson v. Boyles, 64 Iowa, 428, 20 N. W. 746.

130 Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 247; Chit. Bills, 209; 2 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 407; 2 Pars. Notes & B. 562; Knill v. Williams, 10 East, 431; Low v. Argrove, 30 Ga. 129. Or to indorse as a partial payment certain liabilities which the note was made to extinguish in full. Johnston v. May, 76 Ind. 293.

131 Cassel v. Dows, 1 Blatchf. 335, Fed. Cas. No. 2,502.

132 Curry v. Bank, 8 Port. (Ala.) 360. As to the power to strike out indorsement, and the effect of so doing, see $$ 715, 716, 726, note, supra.

133 Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 247; Foote v. Bragg, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 363. And as to the filling of blank indorsements, see § 710, supra.

134 Farmer v. Rand, 14 Me. 225; Buck v. Appleton, Id. 284; Andrews v. Simms, 33 Ark. 771.

135 Belden v. Hann, 61 Iowa, 42, 15 N. W. 591; Croskey v. Skinner, 44 Ill. 321.

136 Clawson v. Gustin, 5 N. J. Law, 821. So, the addition of the word "surety" to a blank indorsement at the making of a note by one who was not Robinson v. Reed, 46 Iowa, 219,

the payee.

137 Luth v. Stewart, 6 Vict. Law, R. 383.

138 Kennon v. McRea, 7 Port. (Ala.) 175.

139 Morrison v. Smith, 13 Mo. 234.

140 See §§ 662, 1739, supra.

141 Collis v. Emett, 1 H. Bl. 313.

the acceptor cannot recover the payment made, as on a forged indorsement, since the indorsement is immaterial, if the bill was never delivered by the drawer to the payee named.1

142

Alteration in Amount.

§ 1754. It is a material alteration to raise the amount named in a bill or note.143 And such alteration will render the instrument void in the hands of a bona fide holder, even though it cannot be detected by the closest scrutiny,144 and although the holder offers to take the original amount of the note.145 So, it is a material alteration to raise the marginal figures designating the amount,146 or to cut them off; 147 although it has been held that such figures form no part of the note, and that it is not material to change them to conform to the body of the note.148 If a bill is altered by raising the amount, and is afterwards accepted and paid by the acceptor in ignorance of such alteration, he may recover the payment made.11 And, even if the amount is altered to a smaller sum, it will be a material alteration.150 But a memorandum on the back of a note reducing the amount will not discharge a surety who did not con

142 Coggill v. Bank, 1 N. Y. 113.

149

143 Batchelder v. White, 80 Va. 103; Hall v. Fuller, 5 Barn. & C. 750; Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank, 3 N. Y. 230; Goodman v. Eastman, 4 N. H. 455; Leas v. Walls, 101 Pa. St. 57; Burrows v. Klunk, 70 Md. 451, 17 Atl. 378; Mills v. Starr, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 359. And such alteration is a forgery. Rex v. Post, Russ. & R. 101.

144 Wade v. Withington, 1 Allen (Mass.) 561; Fordyce v. Kosminski, 49 Ark. 40, 3 S. W. 892.

145 Evans v. Deming, 20 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 71

146 Greenfield Sav. Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196, where amount was written in words and figures, but raised by fraudulent use of spaces left by the maker. But see, contra, where only the figures had been written as a memorandum and the amount left designedly blank, Garrard v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. Div. 30: Johnston Harvester Co. v. McLean, 57 Wis. 258, 15 N. W. 177. 147 Hall v. Bank, 5 Dana (Ky.) 258.

148 Smith v. Smith, 1 R. I. 398; Houghton v. Francis, 29 Ill. 244; Horton v. Horton's Estate, 71 Iowa, 448, 32 N. W. 452; Fisk v. McNeal, 23 Neb. 726, 37 N. W. 616.

149 White v. Bank, 64 N. Y. 316.

150 Hewins v. Cargill, 67 Me. 554. RAND.C.P.-156

(2481)

So, an acceptor will be liable for the amount of a bill as accepted, if accepted after being altered from a larger sum.152

sent. 151

It is also a material alteration to add the rate of exchange on a foreign bill,153 or to add attorney's fees to a note.15*

Alteration in Medium of Payment.

155

§ 1755. It is a material alteration of a note to add words making it payable in gold; or to erase such words, even after the maturity of the note; 156 or to change a note payable "in drafts" to payment in "current funds"; 157 or to add any word qualifying the goods or property in which a note is made payable; 158 or to change the fund mentioned and referred to for payment.1

159

Alteration of Interest Clause.

§ 1756. It is a material alteration to add an interest clause,180 even without any fraud on the holder's part,161 although the altera

151 Merchants' Bank v. Evans, 9 W. Va. 373.

152 Hamelin v. Bruck, 9 Q. B. 306.

153 Byles, Bills, 324; Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 247. Although the addition is made in red ink. Hirschfield v. Smith, L. R. 1 C. P. 340; Merrick v. Boury, 4 Ohio St. 60.

154 Burwell v. Orr, 84 Ill. 465; or to erase such word, First Nat. Bank of Decorah v. Laughlin, 4 N. D. 391, 61 N. W. 473. But see Bullock v. Taylor, 39 Mich. 137.

155 Bogarth v. Breedlove, 39 Tex. 561; Wills v. Wilson, 3 Or. 308; or "in specie," Darwin v. Rippey, 63 N. C. 318. But see, contra, where the note was made in 1860, and there was then no other legal currency, Bridges v. Winters, 42 Miss. 135.

156 Church v. Howard, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 5.
157 Angle v. Insurance Co., 92 U. S. 330.
158 Martendale v. Follet, 1 N. H. 95.
159 Long v. Miller, 93 N. C. 233.

160 Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 247; 2 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 396; Blakey v. Johnson, 13 Bush (Ky.) 197; Kennedy v. Crandell, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 1; Lewis v. Shepherd, 1 Mackey (D. C.) 46; Meyer v. Huneke, 55 N. Y. 412; Schwarz v. Oppold, 74 N. Y. 307; McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34; Long v. Mason, 84 N. C. 15; Bradley v. Mann, 37 Mich. 1; Craighead v. McLoney, 99 Pa. St. 211; Waterman v. Vose, 43 Me. 504; Boalt v. Brown, 13 Ohio St. 364; Jones v. Bangs, 40 Ohio St. 139; Bowman v. Mitchell, 79 Ind. 84; Hart v. Clouser, 30

161 Fay v. Smith, 1 Allen (Mass.) 477; Warpole v. Ellison, 4 Houst. (Del.) 322.

tion is afterwards erased before trial.16 So, it is a material alteration to insert a figure indicating the interest to be paid; 163 or, where the rate of interest has been left blank, to fill up such blank with a rate not agreed on.1 So, it is material to strike out the interest clause; 165 or to alter it,166 e. g. by raising the rate to be paid; 107 or even, it has been held, by interlining the word "paid" in

164

Ind. 210; Kountz v. Hart, 17 Ind. 329; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Courtney, 60 Ind. 134; Brown v. Jones, 3 Port. (Ala.) 420; Glover v. Robbins, 49 Ala. 220; Lamar v. Brown, 56 Ala. 157; Owen v. Hall, 70 Md. 97, 16 Atl. 376; Farmers' Nat. Bank of Adams v. Thomas, 79 Hun, 595, 29 N. Y. Supp. 837; Meise v. Doscher, 83 Hun, 580, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1072; Boustead v. Cuyler, 116 Pa. St. 551, 8 Atl. 848; Sanders v. Bagwell, 32 S. C. 238, 10 S. E. 946; Id., 37 S. C. 145, 15 S. E. 714, and 16 S. E. 770; Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Novich, 89 Tex. 381, 34 S. W. 914; McVey v. Ely, 5 B. J. Lea (Tenn.) 438; Capital Bank v. Armstrong. 62 Mo. 59; Iron Mountain Bank v. Murdock, Id. 70; Presbury v. Michael, 33 Mo. 542; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo. 449; Halcrow v. Kelly, 28 U. C. C. P. 551. Especially where the contrary was agreed, Washington Sav. Bank v. Ecky, 51 Mo. 272; or where it had been originally printed in the note, and erased before execution, Kilkelly v. Martin, 34 Wis. 525. 162 Locknane v. Emmerson, 11 Bush (Ky.) 69; Warpole v. Ellison, supra; Plyler v. Elliott, 19 S. C. 257.

163 Davis v. Henry, 13 Neb. 497, 14 N. W. 523.

164 Hoopes v. Collingwood, 10 Colo. 107, 13 Pac. 909; Shanks v. Albert, 47 Ind. 461; Little Rock Trust Co. v. Martin, 57 Ark. 277, 21 S. W. 468; Palmer v. Poor, 121 Ind. 135, 22 N. E. 984; Derr v. Keaough, 96 Iowa, 397, 65 N. W. 339. And see § 1768, infra.

165 Brooks v. Allen, 62 Ind. 401; or a clause acknowledging interest paid to maturity. Hert v. Oehler, SO Ind. 83.

166 E. g. "from date" instead of "from maturity," Black v. Bowman, 15 III. App. 166; Fraker v. Cullum, 21 Kan. 555; although it had been so agreed, Otto v. Halff, 89 Tex. 384, 34 S. W. 910, reversing (Fed. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. 1052; or from "April 1st" to "May 1st," Benedict v. Miner, 58 Ill. 19; or by making it payable semiannually, Dewey v. Reed, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 16; Neff v. Homer, 63 Pa. St. 327; or even by adding the words "after maturity," Coburn v. Webb, 56 Ind. 96; or annually, Marsh v. Griffin, 42 Iowa, 403; Leonard v. Phillips, 39 Mich. 182; Kennedy v. Moore, 17 S. C. 464; or erasing them, Dietz v. Harder, 72 Ind. 208; Page v. Danaher, 43 Wis. 221; or by changing the rate, Canon v. Grigsby, 116 Ill. 151, 5 N. E. 362.

167 Bowman v. Mitchell, 79 Ind. 84; Harsh v. Klepper, 28 Ohio St. 200; Gettysburg Nat. Bank v. Chisolm, 169 Pa. St. 564, 32 Atl. 730; Post v. Losey, 111 Ind. 74, 12 N. E. 121; or inserting a higher than legal rate, where no rate was named, Draper v. Wood, 112 Mass. 315; Lee v. Starbird, 55 Me. 491; Ivory v. Michael, 33 Mo. 398; Warrington v. Early, 2 El. & Bl. 763; or after the

such clause,168 or by reducing the rate named.169 But the indorsement of a memorandum, reducing the rate of interest without the surety's consent, is not such alteration as will discharge him.170 And it has been held not to be material if an interest clause is inserted as intended by the parties. But such alteration made fraudulently in a certificate of deposit has been held to be a material one, 172

Alteration of Date.

§ 1757. An alteration of date is, in like manner, material, and avoids the instrument; 173 especially where the maturity of the paper is affected by it.1 But it has been held to be material with

174

printed words "with interest at," Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427; Hurlbut v. Hall, 39 Neb. 889, 58 N. W. 538; or erasing a lower rate expressed, Moore v. Hutchinson, 69 Mo. 429. But adding a rate which is illegal is without effect, and will not discharge other parties. Keene v. Miller (Ky.) 45 S. W. 1041.

168 Patterson v. McNeeley, 16 Ohio St. 348.

169 Benj. Chalm. Dig. art. 247; Sutton v. Toomer, 7 Barn. & C. 416; Whitmer v. Frye, 10 Mo. 348.

170 Cambridge Sav. Bank v. Hyde, 131 Mass. 77.

171 First Nat. Bank of Port Huron v. Carson, 60 Mich. 432, 27 N. W. 589. E. g. by filling a blank with the legal rate. First Nat. Bank of Oakland v. Wolff, 79 Cal. 69, 21 Pac. 551, 748; Rainbolt v. Eddy, 34 Iowa, 440.

172 Woodworth v. Anderson, 63 Iowa, 503, 19 N. W. 296.

173 Chit. Bills, 209; 2 Daniel, Neg. Inst. 386; 2 Pars. Notes & B. 550; Walton v. Hastings, 4 Camp. 223, 1 Starkie, 215; Outhwaite v. Luntley, 4 Camp. 179; Master v. Miller, 4 Term R. 320; Vance v. Lowther, 1 Exch. Div. 176: Wood v. Steele, 6 Wall. 80; Rogers v. Vosburgh, 87 N. Y. 228; Evans v. Deming, 20 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 71; Bland v. O'Hagan, 64 N. C. 471; McMillan v. Hefferlin, 18 Mont. 385, 45 Pac. 548; Newman v. King, 54 Ohio St. 273, 43 N. E. 683; Miller v. Stark, 148 Pa. St. 164, 23 Atl. 1058; Aubuchon v. McKnight, 1 Mo. 312; Britton v. Dierker, 46 Mo. 591; Hervey v. Harvey, 15 Me. 357; Kennedy v. Bank, 18 Pa. St. 347; Warren v. Layton, 3 Har. (Del.) 404; Fraker v. Cullum, 21 Kan. 555; Gladstone v. Dew, 9 U. C. C. P. 439. So, before the bills of exchange act of 1882. Leeds & Co. Bank v. Walker, 11 Q. B. Div. 84. And see § 84, supra. But see, contra, as to date of indorsement, Griffith v. Cox, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 210.

174 Crawford v. Bank, 100 N. Y. 50, 2 N. E. 881, affirming 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 68; Wyman v. Yeomans, 84 Ill. 403; United States Bank v. Russel, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 391. Although the original date would mature on Sunday. Stephens v. Graham, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 505. But not where the maturity was only ex

« PreviousContinue »