President of the Bank of the United States v. Russel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The plaintiffs declared on two counts, ist. On the defendants’ promissory note, dated 9th June 1798. 2d. On another note dated 19th June 1798. On a trial this term, the jury found the following special verdict.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs declared on two counts, ist. On the defendants’ promissory note, dated 9th June 1798. 2d. On another note dated 19th June 1798. On a trial this term, the jury found the following special verdict. The jury, &c. say, That Edward Russel and Jeremiah Boone, the defendants, did on the 9th day of June 1798, draw and sign a certain promissory note, being the same note stated in the first count in the plaintiff’s declaration, bearing the same daté, for the sum of 1500 dollars, payable to a certain Joseph Thomas, or his o.rder, at 60 days after date, which note was delivered to the said…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It cannot be questioned, that the material alteration of a deed will render it of no effect, and this rule is equally applicable to bills of exchange and promissory notes. The remark is certainly correct, that more dangerous consequences would result from [jermitting alterations on bills and notes than on deeds, the former being more readily susceptible of alteration than the latter, to which the names of witnesses are uniformly subscribed.
Judgment for the defendants.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Babb v. ClemsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Low v. MerrillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1843
- Chism v. ToomerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1871
- Getty v. ShearerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Lisle v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.