Winters v. Mowrer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 23, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of nonsuit of C. P. Lancaster Co., April T., 1892, No. 6. Assumpsit to recover the sum of $480, with interest from September 28, 1889. The statement, as amended, declared on a promissory note, and, by an additional count, on the original consideration for money borrowed and received by the maker, now deceased, from the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 23, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of nonsuit of C. P. Lancaster Co., April T., 1892, No. 6. Assumpsit to recover the sum of $480, with interest from September 28, 1889. The statement, as amended, declared on a promissory note, and, by an additional count, on the original consideration for money borrowed and received by the maker, now deceased, from the plaintiff. The defense set up alleged material alteration of the note, a facsimile of which appears on page 49. . . The fact, as disclosed at the trial, and the rulings on evidence, are abundantly disclosed by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
McCarthy, J.,
There is no doubt in this case that the promissory note in suit was altered in a material part. The alteration was apparent. In such a case the burden of proof is undoubtedly upon the holder of the note to show that such alteration was lawfully made. If he fails to do so he cannot recover upon it. At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony the learned judge entered a judgment of nonsuit and afterwards refused to take it off.
Two questions arise for our consideration:
1. The burden of proof being upon the plaintiff, as holder of the note, to prove that the alteration was…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brown v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Hill v. Nation Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Simpson v. StackhouseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- West Phila. N. Bank v. FieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- McGrann v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hinsdale v. CallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Massiah v. HoodSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Gettysburg National Bank v. GageSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Anglo-American Land Mortgage & Agency Co. v. WoodU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1906
- Thayer v. Lawrence County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County1936