Church v. Howard
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, entered upon the verdict of a jury. The action was brought upon a promissory note made by the defendant Fargo, to the order of plaintiff’s intestate, and signed by defendant Howard as surety. The latter defended on the ground, among others, that after the execution and delivery of the note, a material alteration was made without his knowledge or consent.
1DissentLearned, P. J.
The alteration of an instrument does not vitiate, unless it changes the effect. To cross a t or to dot an i does not vitiate. (Hunt v. Bennett, 6 Mass., 519; Brown v. Pinkham, 18 Pick. 172.) Then the question must be, did this erasure change the effect. The note was dated in 1870, and was for the payment, at two years, of $2,000, with interest semi-annually, “ in gold or its equivalent.” The italicized words were erased in 1873) after the note had become payable.
I. This was a promise to pay a sum of money, not to deliver a certain quantity of gold. (Kimpton v. Bronson, 45 Barb., 626; and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Knox v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Hunt v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Burnhisel v. FirmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Chrysler v. . RenoisNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Rodes v. . BronsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.