Hunt v. Gray
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. The material facts were these. The suit was upon a note of which the defendant was the drawer, one John E. Hunt being the drawee. The consideration of the note was a horse sold and delivered. This horse, it appeared, was the property of George Hunt, the plaintiff, for whom the said John E. Hunt was acting as agent in the sale of the horse. This agency was not disclosed to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. The material facts were these. The suit was upon a note of which the defendant was the drawer, one John E. Hunt being the drawee. The consideration of the note was a horse sold and delivered. This horse, it appeared, was the property of George Hunt, the plaintiff, for whom the said John E. Hunt was acting as agent in the sale of the horse. This agency was not disclosed to the defendant. Upon the receipt of the note the agent showed it to the plaintiff,'and took it to the bank to have it discounted for his use. The bank refused to cash…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Beasley, Chief Justice.
There was a material interlineation apparent on the face of the note in suit in this cause, and the first question which arose at the trial was, whether the plaintiff was bound to explain such circumstance before resting his case.
Professor Parsons, in his Treatise on Contracts, Vol. II., p. 228, says: “ That, in the absence of explanation, evident alteration of any instrument is generally presumed to have been made after the execution of it, and consequently it must be explained by the party who relies on the instrument, or seeks…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Payne v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stretch v. WatsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949