Sheldon v. Hawes
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal in Chancery from Kalamazoo Circuit. This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of a note. The defense was a material alteration in the note. A decree was rendered in favor of complainant, and a petition for re-hearing was filed, but denied. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The burden of proof rests upon the party who alleges the alteration of a note as a defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal in Chancery from Kalamazoo Circuit. This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of a note. The defense was a material alteration in the note. A decree was rendered in favor of complainant, and a petition for re-hearing was filed, but denied. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The burden of proof rests upon the party who alleges the alteration of a note as a defense. There seems to be a conflict of authority upon the subject, but the best considered cases hold the burden to be upon the defendant. The following cases are cited to sustain this view.— 2 JMJe.…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.
The bill in this case was filed to foreclose a mortgage, given to secure a note made by defendant to plaintiff. The defense rested upon an alleged alteration of the note, whereby it was made payable with ten per cent, interest. The note was originally drawn and signed without any such clause, and the question was whether the words in the margin, “at ten pr. e£.,” were inserted before the delivery, or- were added after the papers went into complainant’s possession, without defendant’s assent.
The only positive testimony attempting to fix the time and circumstances of tbe alteration…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Comstock v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Mickle v. MaxfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Frieseke v. FriesekeMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Wilson v. Estate of HotchkissMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Tisman v. TismanMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.