Paine v. Edsell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the Common Pleas of Bradford county. This was an action on the case by Jesse Edsell v. Seth W. Paine, on a promissory ¡note for $100, signed by E. W. Hazard, and endorsed in blank fey -defendant. It was alleged in the narr. that the note was dated 24th June, 1847. The defendant alleged that the date stated in the narr. was not the true date of the note; that it had been altered since his endorsement. Also, that he had not been duly notified of its nonpayment.
Read the full summary
Error, to the Common Pleas of Bradford county. This was an action on the case by Jesse Edsell v. Seth W. Paine, on a promissory ¡note for $100, signed by E. W. Hazard, and endorsed in blank fey -defendant. It was alleged in the narr. that the note was dated 24th June, 1847. The defendant alleged that the date stated in the narr. was not the true date of the note; that it had been altered since his endorsement. Also, that he had not been duly notified of its nonpayment. The note was objected to on the ground of alteration, as alleged, but it was admitted. It was as follows: “ Three years after…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered, by
Black,' C. J.
In Simpson v. Stackhouse, 9 Barr 186, it is decided on principles perfectly satisfactory, that an apparent alteration in a material part of a negotiable instrument avoids it, unless it be proved that such alteration was lawfully made, and the burden of proving how it was made is on the holder. That the note in question here was altered. in the date can be seen at a glance, and, inasmuch as no evidence was given to explain it, the jury should have been instructed that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Another objection to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Colonial Trust Co. v. GetzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Hartley & Co. v. CorboySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Gettysburg National Bank v. ChisolmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Estate of NagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890