Searles v. Seipp
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Minnehaha county court. Hon. E. Part.t-man, Judge. Action to recover on-a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. When a party executes Ms promissory note in blank, it carries with it implied authority to any holder to fill up the blank and perfect the instrument, and it is valid and binding in the hands of a bona fide holder.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Minnehaha county court. Hon. E. Part.t-man, Judge. Action to recover on-a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. When a party executes Ms promissory note in blank, it carries with it implied authority to any holder to fill up the blank and perfect the instrument, and it is valid and binding in the hands of a bona fide holder. Bank v. Neal, 22 How. 96; Usher v. Chancey, 4 Camp 97; Buckley v. Butter, 2 B. & C. 415; Schultz v. Ostley, 29 Eng. C. L. 544; Ma-hone v. Central Bank, 17 Ga. Ill; Fullerton v. Sturgis,…
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.
This was an action to recover the amount appearing to be due upon a promissory note, but which the defendant and respondent claims was altered after it left the maker. The note was upon a printed blank, ahd when it left the hands of the defendant, the maker, it was in the following form:
“$- December 21, 1886.
‘ ‘On or before the first day of-, 188-, for value received, I promise to pay to the Insurance Company of Dakota, at its office in Sioux Falls, Dakota,-Four-Dollars.
“[Signed] • Martin Seipp.”
When the note was offered in evidence, it appeared that the word “Forty” had been inserted on the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Greenfield Savings Bank v. StowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Holmes v. TrumperMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Knoxville National Bank v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Stebbins v. LardnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Bruce v. WestcottNew York Supreme Court · 1848
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chittenden Trust Co. v. Sebert Lumber, Co. (In Re Vermont Toy Works, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · 1987
- Porter v. HardyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Bank of Herington v. WangerinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
- Soldier Valley Savings Bank v. Camanche Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1935