Presbury v. Michael
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The law is unmistakably clear, that any change made in a note.by a party not interested in the note itself, or liable on it, or entitled to proceeds, does not vitiate the instrument unless done at the instance of some one within the above exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The law is unmistakably clear, that any change made in a note.by a party not interested in the note itself, or liable on it, or entitled to proceeds, does not vitiate the instrument unless done at the instance of some one within the above exception. The distinction ignored by the court below, clearly taken in all the books, is that the same change in a written instrument is either an alteration or a spoliation according to the person who makes it. If the instrument is changed in its legal consequences by a party to the note or the holder, being the…
1Opinion of the CourtBay, Judge
There is no material difference between this case and the case of Ivory against the same defendants, decided at' the present term of this court.
~W,e there held that the insertion of the words “ bearing ten per cent, interest from maturity ” was not the filling of a blank, as the note was a perfect instrument without it; but that it was the adding of words to the end of the note, materially changing the terms of the contract, by enlarging the liability of the endorser, and that such alteration rendered the note invalid as against the endorser, he never having consented to, or ratified the same.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cronkhite v. NebekerIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. NovichTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Washington Savings Bank v. EckySupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Harsh v. KlepperOhio Supreme Court · 1876