Gettysburg National Bank v. Gage
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 27, March T., 1897, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Feb. T., 1895, No. 28, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Bell, P. J., specially presiding. Suit was brought on two promissory notes, each dated March 26, 1892, one at one year for $66.66, and the other at two years for $66.67. The notes contained the written words “ with interest at Qf0” The allegation of the defense was that this was an alteration.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 27, March T., 1897, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Feb. T., 1895, No. 28, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Bell, P. J., specially presiding. Suit was brought on two promissory notes, each dated March 26, 1892, one at one year for $66.66, and the other at two years for $66.67. The notes contained the written words “ with interest at Qf0” The allegation of the defense was that this was an alteration. Other facts appear in the opinion of the court. The trial judge directed a verdict for defendant. Verdict and judgment for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The contention in the present case is that the words “ with interest at 6 per cent” were interlined after the notes were signed. They have been exhibited to us and we have had the same opportunity to inspect them that the court below had. The only evidence apparent on the face of the notes to sustain the defendant’s' contention, or to excite suspicion even, is that the words do not occupy the whole line and that they begin a little to the right of the other lines. It was said in Bank v. Chisolm, 169 Pa. 564, that this was sufficient to put the discounting bank upon…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Yoders v. Amwell TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Gettysburg National Bank v. ChisolmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Clark v. EcksteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
- Winters v. MowrerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- Alexander v. BuckwalterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901