Warren v. Fant's trustee
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 1 — PETITION ORDINARY appeal prom warren court of common pleas. 1. The addition to the writing sued on was a “material alteration,” which released the sureties.
Read the full summary
Case 1 — PETITION ORDINARY appeal prom warren court of common pleas. 1. The addition to the writing sued on was a “material alteration,” which released the sureties. The words added are a part of the obligation, although written on the margin. .(Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, secs. 149, 1373 and 1375; Woodworth v. Bank of America, 19 Johnson, 391; Lisle v. Rogers, 18 B. M., 538.) 2. The effect of the alteration was to render the note utterly void, as to the sureties, from the instant it was made, and the subsequent promise to pay, if one was made, was without consideration, and, therefore,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE COFER
delivered tiie opinion of the court.. The reply admitted that the words on the margin of the obligation sued upon were written at the suggestion of the appellee, in the absence of the sureties, and by implication at least, without their knowledge or consent.
Those words, if taken to be a part of the note, increased the liability of the sureties, and released them, unless they are bound by subsequent ratification or promise to pay.
The words added were written on the face of the paper which contained the obligation, and above the signatures of the obligors; they were put there at the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Blakey v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
- Cotton v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834
3Cited by11 opinions
- Montgomery v. CrossthwaitSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- First State Bank ex rel. Oelke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- State v. PaxtonNebraska Supreme Court · 1902
- Bank of Commerce v. McCartyNebraska Supreme Court · 1930
- Gray v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.