Legal Opinion

Middaugh v. Elliott

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 1, 1895PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the Harfison Circuit Court.—Hon. Paris 0. Stepp, Judge.- (1) It is the law of this state that any alteration of a written instrument, whether material or immaterial, after its execution, and whether before delivery or afterwards, by a party interested in it, without the consent of a party to and securities on such instrument, will release and discharge such parties and securities.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Harfison Circuit Court.—Hon. Paris 0. Stepp, Judge.- (1) It is the law of this state that any alteration of a written instrument, whether material or immaterial, after its execution, and whether before delivery or afterwards, by a party interested in it, without the consent of a party to and securities on such instrument, will release and discharge such parties and securities. Haskett v. Champion, 30 Mo. 136; Ivory v. Mitchell, 33 Mo. 398; Trigg v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245; Britton v. Biericer, 46 Mo. 591; Banlc v. Dunn, 62 Mo. 79; Moore v. Hutchinson, 69 Mo. 430; Banlc v. Friclce,…

1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.

—This is an action on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by defendants, Elliott and George, Sheridan, and Charles Henry. Plaintiff is an indorsee, for value, before maturity. The defense was non est factum, based on the charge that the note had been altered after delivery, and without authority of the makers, by erasing the rate of interest written in the note and inserting another and different rate.

The evidence on the part of the defendants, without substantial contradiction, establishes this state of facts:

*604In December, 1891, defendant Elliott bought of one E. A. Wilson a span…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Capital Bank v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  2. First National Bank v. FrickeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
  3. Trigg v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
  4. Kingston Savings Bank v. BossermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
  5. Farmers' Bank of Maitland v. MyersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. German-American Bank v. HennisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
  2. Handley v. BarrowsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API