Lisle v. Rogers
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case IS- QrD. Pet. APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT. The cases are numerous upon the subject of the alteration of the dates of contracts, but each and all I have found are cases of ante-dating, except one, ( In this case the alteration was beneficial.to the defendant, and not made by the plaintiff, nor any one through whom he claims.. Rogers is sued upon the-contract of assignment, not upon the note..
Read the full summary
Case IS- QrD. Pet. APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT. The cases are numerous upon the subject of the alteration of the dates of contracts, but each and all I have found are cases of ante-dating, except one, ( In this case the alteration was beneficial.to the defendant, and not made by the plaintiff, nor any one through whom he claims.. Rogers is sued upon the-contract of assignment, not upon the note.. The contract is direct and not remote, he does not trace his title through McMurtry to Rogers, and there is no alteration of the contract of assignment on the back of the note, which is the only…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Simpson
delivered the opinion of the court.
Lisle sued Rogers as the assignor of a note executed by John McMurtry for $2,500, dated December 10th, 1855, payable six months after date.
Rogers alledged, in his answer, that he endorsed the note for the accommodation of McMurtry, who sold it to Lisle; that when he endorsed it it was dated the 4th instead of the 10th of December; and that McMurtry, without his knowledge or consent, altered the date, which Lisle knew when he bought it. This alteration in the date of the note he relied upon as having the legal effect to discharge him from all…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Woodworth v. President, Directors, & Co. of the Bank of AmericaNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- President of the Bank of the United States v. RusselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1802
- Bank of Commonwealth v. McChordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836