Van Brunt v. Eoff
New York Supreme Court
ACTION on a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the order of the plaintiffs. The note sued on was dated September 5, payable twelve months from date, at the Broadway Bank. The note, when made by the defendant, was dated September 13, and was altered by a person named Clinton, acting as the defendant’s agent, in the presence of the plaintiffs, but in ¿the absence of the defendant, to September 5. The plaintiffs were insurance brokers.
Read the full summary
ACTION on a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the order of the plaintiffs. The note sued on was dated September 5, payable twelve months from date, at the Broadway Bank. The note, when made by the defendant, was dated September 13, and was altered by a person named Clinton, acting as the defendant’s agent, in the presence of the plaintiffs, but in ¿the absence of the defendant, to September 5. The plaintiffs were insurance brokers. This note was transferred to them by Clinton for the premium on a policy procured by them from the Globe Insurance Company, on the interest of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Ingraham, J.
The alteration of the date of the note, made by the agent of the maker under the supposition that he had authority to make such an alteraron,. *502did not render the note void. If there was no authority to make such an alteration, the note would still be a subsisting obligation, as it was before it was altered.
[New York General Term, September 16, 1861.
The judge erred in holding the note to be void, where there was no evidence of a fraudulent intent.
Hew trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
Clerke, Ingraham and Leonard, Justices.]
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brooks v. AllenIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- White Sewing Machine Co. v. DakinMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Martin v. . Tradesmen's Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886