Bowers v. Jewell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
The court decide on the materiality of any alteration in a written instrument ; but whether made by consent, or with fraudulent motive*, must be settled by the jury- ,. ,. An immaterial alteration by the promisee of a note does not vitiate it. An alteration of the date of a note from A. D. 1809, to 1819, though the note was in truth executed in AD. 1819, is material. Consent to an alteration may be either implied or express.
Read the full summary
The court decide on the materiality of any alteration in a written instrument ; but whether made by consent, or with fraudulent motive*, must be settled by the jury- ,. ,. An immaterial alteration by the promisee of a note does not vitiate it. An alteration of the date of a note from A. D. 1809, to 1819, though the note was in truth executed in AD. 1819, is material. Consent to an alteration may be either implied or express. This was assumpsit on a promissory note, dated September 10th, 1819, for $21 25 payable in one year with interest.. The cause was tried here October term, 1322, on the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbuhy, J.
This alteration was made after the execution of the note ; and the note, being, then-under the control of the promisee, must be presumed to have been altered by himself or by his direction. 1 N. H. Rep. 96, 147, Martindale vs. Follett, & Chesley vs. Frost, & Auths. there cited, —1 Greenleaf 337.(1) 11 Coke 27. — Cro. E). 623. — 1 Shep. T. 69 — 1 Gall. 69. — 15 John, Rep. ¾97.— 1 Greenlf. 77. {*>4D. & E, 331. — Chitt. on Bills 84, 85, Storey’s £¾.
This however is a presumption of fact, and, when the truth will warrant, may be rebutted.
The next question is, whether the alteration be material..…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Woodworth v. President, Directors, & Co. of the Bank of AmericaNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Cutts v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1812
- Martendale v. FolletSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1817