Arnold, Barbour & Hartshorn v. Jones
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Assumpsit against the defendant as surety upon the following note: “ Providence, January 1st, 1851. For value received we promise to pay Arnold, Barbour & Hartshorn, (the Providence Steam Pipe and Gas Company,) or order, in six months after date, one hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighteen cents.” Signed by Reisner & Cas-well. In this note the words in brackets were crossed out and the preceding words, “ Arnold, Barbour & Harts-horn” inserted above them.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendant as surety upon the following note: “ Providence, January 1st, 1851. For value received we promise to pay Arnold, Barbour & Hartshorn, (the Providence Steam Pipe and Gas Company,) or order, in six months after date, one hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighteen cents.” Signed by Reisner & Cas-well. In this note the words in brackets were crossed out and the preceding words, “ Arnold, Barbour & Harts-horn” inserted above them. It appeared at the trial, that the plaintiffs were a partnership, established October. 1, 1850, and dealt in Steam and Gas Pipes, and…
1Opinion of the CourtHaile, J.
Whether this motion for a new trial shall be granted or not, depends mainly on the legal decision of the question, whether the alteration of this note, as described in said motion, made under the circumstances found at the trial, is such a material alteration as would in law render said note void.
It may be considered as settled law, that any alteration in any material part of a deed or other instrument under seal by the plaintiff or with his privity, after its delivery and without the consent of the person who executed it, will render such deed void. For the instrument is no longer the deed…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hatch v. HatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Speake & Others v. U. StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Smith v. CrookerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Maxwell v. MaxwellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Homer v. WallisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.