Horst v. Wagner
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Washington District Oourt. The defendant executed to the plaintiff’s father, John Horst, his promissory note payable to his order, and also a mortgage to secure the same. The said John Horst, in order to transfer the note to his daughter, the plaintiff, erased the name John and inserted the name Frances.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington District Oourt. The defendant executed to the plaintiff’s father, John Horst, his promissory note payable to his order, and also a mortgage to secure the same. The said John Horst, in order to transfer the note to his daughter, the plaintiff, erased the name John and inserted the name Frances. Afterwards, and so far as the record shows, before the note was delivered to the plaintiff, he struck out the alteration, restored the note to its original form, and transferred the note to the plaintiff by indorsement. The suit is brought upon the note and mortgage. The…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
1.promissory note * effect o£ alteration, I. We are inclined to think the alteration of the note was material. The plaintiff, as the note stood altered, could not properly demand payment. She was 1 j. */ i. «/ neither indorsee nor rightfully payee. That a material alteration of an instrument by the holder, without mistake, and with intent to change the legal effect, will discharge the maker, is, of course, not denied. But in this case three things should be observed:
1st. The payee, John Horst, testifies: “I made the alteration to assign the note to my daughter.” No reason is shown for his not…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lee v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Fairchild v. PlankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Himmelberger v. Central State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- Wallace v. TiceOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- James v. TiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.