Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Pickard
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 4, 1983PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Hancock, Jr., J. P.
Section 3-407 (subd [2], par [a]) of the Uniform Commercial Code provides that, as against anyone other than a subsequent holder in due course, a fraudulent and material alteration of an instrument by a holder “discharges any party whose contract is thereby changed unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the defense”. Paragraph (b) of subdivision (2) of that section provides that “no other alteration discharges any party and the instrument *62may be enforced according to its original tenor”. This appeal from an order of Surrogate’s Court…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Booth v. . PowersNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- New Britain National Bank v. BaughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
- Wilcox Press, Inc. v. Beauty Fashion, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Commercial Credit Corporation v. BryantCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973
3Cited by2 opinions
- Citizen's National Bank of Willmar v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Davis Auction House, Inc. v. Ontario National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994