Rainbolt v. Eddy
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Story Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note for $213, made by defendant, October 11, 1869, payable twelve months after date, with ten per cent interest, to the order of E. S. Howe, and indorsed by the payee, in blank.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Story Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note for $213, made by defendant, October 11, 1869, payable twelve months after date, with ten per cent interest, to the order of E. S. Howe, and indorsed by the payee, in blank. Defense, that the note had been altered in a material part, by writing the words “ ten pr ct inst,” in a blank in said note, after the same was executed and delivered, so as to increase defendant’s liability, and of which plaintiff had knowledge before he purchased the note. Trial to the court, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
There is no question made as to the fact, that the note sued upon was altered by the payee after delivery, and without the maker’s consent, by inserting the words “ten pr ct inst,” thereby increasing the maker’s liability. It is also conceded that the alteration was made by inserting the words in a blank, left in the note when executed, and was done in such a manner as not to afford suspicion of any alteration, or the means of detecting it.
The plaintiff acquired the note before maturity; he testified positively that when he bought it, he supposed it was all right. The defendant testified to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCramer v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
3Cited by14 opinions
- Knoxville National Bank v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Blakey v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
- Glasscock v. First National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1924
- Diamond Distilleries Co. v. GottCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- First National Bank of Parkersburg v. JohnsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.