Croswell v. Labree
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. This was an action on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “$85.00. Monson, Aug. 8th, 1883. One year after date I promise to pay to the order of J. G-. Timberlake or bearer Eighty-five dollars at my house with interest, value received. I. D. Labeee.” The note was written by filling out a printed blank.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. This was an action on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “$85.00. Monson, Aug. 8th, 1883. One year after date I promise to pay to the order of J. G-. Timberlake or bearer Eighty-five dollars at my house with interest, value received. I. D. Labeee.” The note was written by filling out a printed blank. The defense was that the words “or bearer” had been written in after the note had been completed, signed and delivered by the maker, and without his knowledge or consent. The presiding justice instructed the jury, that, “to constitute a defense by this alleged…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The note in controversy contains the promise of the defendant to pay, “to the order of” J. G. Timberlake “or bearer,” a sum of money, and was indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff. The defense at the trial was an alleged unauthorized alteration of the note by inserting in it the words “or bearer.”
The judge at the trial ruled that, if the alteration, though unauthorized, was made innocently, without any fraudulent or improper motive, it would not avoid the note. That was correct and is well borne out by the principle established in Milbery v. Storer, 75 Maine, 69.
The further instruction was…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Shroeder v. WebsterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Builders Lime & Cement Co. v. WeimerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. WillyardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Grapes v. RocqueSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Wallace v. TiceOregon Supreme Court · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.