Putnam v. Clark
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, reported in Putnam v. Ciarle, 2 Stew. Eq. ¡¡,12. I. (а) Suspicious circumstances being shown to be connected with the alteration, it is necessary for the party relying on the instrument to explain satisfactorily the alteration. (б) The circumstances of this case make the alteration appear not only suspicious, but also probably fraudulent. (c) There has been no explanation of the alteration by the party relying on the instrument.
Read the full summary
On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, reported in Putnam v. Ciarle, 2 Stew. Eq. ¡¡,12. I. (а) Suspicious circumstances being shown to be connected with the alteration, it is necessary for the party relying on the instrument to explain satisfactorily the alteration. (б) The circumstances of this case make the alteration appear not only suspicious, but also probably fraudulent. (c) There has been no explanation of the alteration by the party relying on the instrument. The decree, therefore, should be reversed. Hunt v. Gray, 6 Vr. 227; 1 Whart. Ev. § 629; Bailey v. Taylor, 11 Conn. 531;…
1Opinion of the Court
*341The opinion of the court was delivered by
Reed, J.
The bill in this suit is filed by Adah A. Putnam and her husband, to secure the cancellation of a certain assignment of a bond and mortgage, which assignment purports to have been made by the complainants to one William C. Barrett.
It appears that in April, 1871, Lydia A. Putnam was the owner of a bond and mortgage for $12,000, made to her by one Jane M. Mackey. She was anxious to raise money by means of a sale of this security. Her attorney for many years had been William C. Barrett, of New York city. She communicated her wish to him, and he…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Otten v. OttenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Atlantic Guaranty C., Co. v. McDevittNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
- Reddavide v. LaskowitzNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Hofstetter v. BernettNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935