Beary v. Haines
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. In the Court below Peter Beary brought an action of assumpsit against Lucas Haines, John Schaffer, and Adam Haines. The sheriff returned “ summoned,” as to John Schaffer and Adam Haines, and “ nihil” as to Lucas Haines.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. In the Court below Peter Beary brought an action of assumpsit against Lucas Haines, John Schaffer, and Adam Haines. The sheriff returned “ summoned,” as to John Schaffer and Adam Haines, and “ nihil” as to Lucas Haines. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note for $700, executed by the three defendants, dated December 7th, 1835, and payable to himself or bearer on the 1st of April, 1837. The defendant Schaffer pleaded non assumpsit and payment, with leave to give the special matters in evidence, &c.; upon which, issues being…
1Opinion of the Court
*20The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
— Had the name of the witness been subscribed to the note, after its execution, the alteration would have avoided it, as was held in Marshal v. Gougler, (10 Serg. & Rawle, 164.) It is a material alteration of the instrument, because, as is there said, it furnishes a different and distinct medium of proof. Nor can it affect the case, whether it be a bond, or a promissory note, or bill of exchange, for it is at least as important, to prevent the tampering with instruments of the latter description as the former. This rule is founded on a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hunt v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Homer v. WallisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Stahl v. BergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Marshall v. Gougler ex rel. GouglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stiles v. ProbstIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Xander v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883