Van Horn v. Bell
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Louisa District Court. Where an instrument has been altered it is incumbent upon the party offering it in evidence to explain the alteration.-1 Greenl. Ev. 697; 4 Kent 5 .'0, note3 ; Morris v. Vandorin, 1 Dal. 67; Dervost v. Gratz, Pet. 0. C. 369; Gibbs v. Os-lorn, 2 Wend. 555; Acker v. Sedgwick, 8 Barb. 514; Jackson y. Jacoby, 9 Cow. 125 ; Hills v. Barnes, 11 N. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Louisa District Court. Where an instrument has been altered it is incumbent upon the party offering it in evidence to explain the alteration.-1 Greenl. Ev. 697; 4 Kent 5 .'0, note3 ; Morris v. Vandorin, 1 Dal. 67; Dervost v. Gratz, Pet. 0. C. 369; Gibbs v. Os-lorn, 2 Wend. 555; Acker v. Sedgwick, 8 Barb. 514; Jackson y. Jacoby, 9 Cow. 125 ; Hills v. Barnes, 11 N. II. R. 395; Adams v. Frye, 3 Met. 103; Warren v. Layton, 3 Harr. 404. relied upon the following authóritíes: Jones v. Ireland, 4 Iowa 63; Ault v. Fleming, 7 lb. 143 ; Harlan v. Berry, 4 G. Greene 212 ; American mote to…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
This is a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage given by defendant to secure the payment of a promissory note. The mortgage purports to convey some two hundred and forty-six acres of land in Louisa county, and also lot 3 in block 2 in the town of Wapello; and to be executed by said Bell and his wife.
The justice of the peace before whom the mortgage "was acknowledged by Bell and wife, adds to his certificate the *467following words : “Lot No. (3) three in block (9) nine was inserted after the mortgage deed was drawn in my presence."
'1 he defendant in his answer admits the execution of the note;…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Coles v. YorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Yeager v. MusgraveWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Davis v. ShaferU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1892
- Potter v. KennellySupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Grinnell State Bank v. Parties in Possession, and Suzanne K. StephensonCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2014