Cole v. Hills
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated January 31, 1855, for $204.88, payable to the plaintiff, or order, in six months; and made by Thomas Tolma.ii as principal, and tbe defendant as surety, by putting his name on the back thereof.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated January 31, 1855, for $204.88, payable to the plaintiff, or order, in six months; and made by Thomas Tolma.ii as principal, and tbe defendant as surety, by putting his name on the back thereof. At the trial the plaintiff produced a note of the chai’acter described, but which was originally written payable to Benjamin R. Cole, or order, and altered by erasing with the pen the initial letter R, in the payee’s name ; and the note was allowed to be read, against the defendant’s exception, without any explanation of such alteration other than what might be…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
An immaterial alteration, which does not vary the meaning of an instrument, does not avoid it, though made by the party claiming under it. Burnham v. Ayer, 35 N. H. 354, and cases cited. Alterations in deeds are immaterial where neither the rights nor interests, duties nor obligations, of either of the parties are in any manner affected or changed. Smith v. Crocker, 5 Mass. 538. An alteration or insertion is immaterial, if it is the insertion only of what the law would imply, or the correcting of a mistake, as in such case the assent of the maker or obligor will be presumed. Bowers v. Jewell,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. CrookerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Bailey v. TaylorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Herrick v. MalinCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
- Administrators of Beaman v. RussellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Jackson ex dem. Collier v. JacobyNew York Supreme Court · 1828
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.