Legal Opinion

Simpson v. Stackhouse

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 26, 1848PublishedCited by 15 opinions

In error from the District Court of Allegheny. This was an action against an endorser of a note drawn by Sankey, who resided in Mercer county. It was proved that the body of the instrument was in the handwriting of defendant; but that the words “ payable at the Bank of Pittsburgh,” written at the end of the instrument, were in a different handwriting.

Read the full summary

In error from the District Court of Allegheny. This was an action against an endorser of a note drawn by Sankey, who resided in Mercer county. It was proved that the body of the instrument was in the handwriting of defendant; but that the words “ payable at the Bank of Pittsburgh,” written at the end of the instrument, were in a different handwriting. The defendant’s point was, that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show these were written at the time of the endorsement, or with defendant’s consent. The court said the jury must decide this as a matter of fact.

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

As a general rule the law presumes, in favour of innocence, that an alteration in an instrument is a legitimate part of it, till the contrary appears; but it is not extended to negotiable securities. The principle of the English cases is, that an alteration so far apparent on the face of a bill or note as to raise a suspicion of its purity, makes it incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that it is still available, and that it is not incumbent on the defendant to disprove it. Johnson v. The Duke of Marlborough, 2 Stark. Rep. 313; Henman v. Dickinson, 5 Bing. 183; Bishop v. Chambre, 3 C. & P. 53;…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Davis v. CarlisleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
  2. Runnion v. CraneIndiana Supreme Court · 1838

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Miners Savings Bank v. NaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Bowman v. BerkeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Colonial Trust Co. v. GetzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  4. Hartley & Co. v. CorboySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
  5. Molden WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API