Hills v. Barnes
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated April 4, 1837. Upon the introduction of the note, in evidence, it was apparent that the date had originally been written, “ May 4, 1837,” and that it had, at some time, been altered to “ April 4.” The defendant contended, that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show that this alteration was made before the note was executed. No evidence when the alteration was actually made, was offered by either party.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated April 4, 1837. Upon the introduction of the note, in evidence, it was apparent that the date had originally been written, “ May 4, 1837,” and that it had, at some time, been altered to “ April 4.” The defendant contended, that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show that this alteration was made before the note was executed. No evidence when the alteration was actually made, was offered by either party. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to the opinion of this court upon the foregoing case. This was a material alteration, and…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
Where it is apparent, upon the face of a promissory note, that it has been altered at some time, that fact will not vitiate the note, if it appears, also, that the alteration was made before the delivery of the note to the payee, or afterwards with the assent of the maker.
*397The question when the alteration was made, is one for the consideration of the jury ; and they may be satisfied, in some instances, from the inspection of the paper itself, that the alteration was made before the signature was affixed to the note. 1 Shepley’s R. 390, Gooch vs. Bryant.
But in the absence of all evidence,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dow v. JewellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1846
- Humphreys v. GuillowSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843