Farmer v. Rand
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas. Assumpsit by the plaintiff, as indorsee, against the defendant, as indorser, of a promissory note, of which the following is a copy. “ $350. Boston, Oct. 31, 1835. “ Eight months after date, I promise to pay to the order of J. Fairbank, at Tremont Bank, in Boston, three hundred and fifty ' dollars, value received with interest. J. Fairbank.”
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas. Assumpsit by the plaintiff, as indorsee, against the defendant, as indorser, of a promissory note, of which the following is a copy. “ $350. Boston, Oct. 31, 1835. “ Eight months after date, I promise to pay to the order of J. Fairbank, at Tremont Bank, in Boston, three hundred and fifty ' dollars, value received with interest. J. Fairbank.” On the back of the note, there was written crosswise, and near the top of the paper, these words: “We waive all notice on the promisor and ourselves, and guaranty the payment at all events.” Directly below were…
1Opinion of the Court
The action was continued, for advisement, and the opinion of the Court afterwards drawn up by
Weston C. J.
The authorities are very clear, that if a notes or other instrument be altered in a material part, without the consent of the party to be affected by it, it is void. Masters v. Miller, 4 T. R. 320; Powell v. Divett, 15 East, 29; Hatch et al. v. Hatch et al. 9 Mass. R. 311; Homer v. Wallis, 11 Mass. R. 309. Cowie et al. v. Halsall, 4 Barn. & Ald. 197; Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 165; Clawson v. Dustin, 2 Southard, 821.
The case finds, that after the note was made and indorsed as it now-…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Homer v. WallisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
3Cited by2 opinions
- M. Schwartz & Sons v. WilmerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
- Davis, Steele & Co. v. EpplerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888