Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, 59 which are written evidence, but cannot properly be regarded as written contracts.

§ 1892. Alteration by a stranger.

The original reason for the rule against alteration was obviously applicable as well when the alteration was made by a stranger, or when it was made by the obligee without fraudulent intent to correct a real or supposed mistake, as when made by the obligee with fraudulent purpose; but after relief was given by equity and by the allowance of secondary evidence in cases of accidental loss or destruction, it would seem as if similar relief should have been given in case of alteration, where the obligee was innocent of any fraudulent intent, certainly where he had no part whatever in the alteration. But the English law did not take this step. Alteration by a stranger still operates as a discharge of a contract, provided the instrument was at the time in the custody of the obligee, for it is said that "a party who has the custody of an instrument made for his benefit is bound to preserve it in its original state." 60 Why he should be bound to more care to prevent alteration by a stranger than to prevent the total loss or destruction of the instrument, is difficult to see. An alteration made under a mistake of fact has been held not fatal,61 but otherwise if the al

498; Kline v. Raymond, 70 Ind. 271; Andrews v. Burdick, 62 Ia. 714, 720, 16 N. W. 275; Davis v. Campbell, 93 Ia. 524, 61 N. W. 1053; Lee v. Alexander, 9 B. Mon. 25, 48 Am. Dec. 412; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. McKernan, 100 Ky. 97, 37 S. W. 490; Osgood v. Stevenson, 143 Mass. 399, 9 N. E. 825; Fletcher v. Minneapolis Ins. Co., 80 Minn. 152, 83 N. W. 29; Burton v. American Ins. Co., 88 Mo. App. 392; Consaul v. Sheldon, 35 Neb. 247, 52 N. W. 1104; Meyer v. Huneke, 55 N. Y. 412; Martin v. Tradesmen's Ins. Co., 101 N. Y. 498, 5 N. E. 338; Cline v. Goodale, 23 Oreg. 406, 31 Pac. 936; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Floyd (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 954; American Pub. Co. v. Fisher, 10 Utah, 147, 37 Pac. 259; Consumers' Ice Co. v. Jenn

ings, 100 Va. 719, 42 S. E. 879; Schwalm v. McIntyre, 17 Wis. 232.

59 Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192; A. A. Cooper Wagon Co. v. Wooldridge, 98 Mo. App. 648, 73 S. W. 724; Schmidt v. Quinzel, 55 N. J. Eq. 792, 38 Atl. 665. So where several writings are essential to prove the agreement of the parties, fraudulent alteration of one invalidates all. Meyer v. Huneke, 55 N. Y. 412.

60 Davidson v. Cooper, 13 M. & W. 343, 352.

61 Raper v. Birkbeck, 15 East, 17; Wilkinson v. Johnson, 3 B. & C. 428; Prince v. Oriental Bank, 3 App. Cas. 325. These were cases where the cancellation under a mistake of fact of the name of a party to an obligation was held not to discharge the party.

teration was intentionally made and the mistake was only as to the legal effect of the contract.62 In the United States the more equitable rule has prevailed that alteration by strangers, or spoliation as it is often called, will not discharge an obligation.63 The rule is the same for alteration by the obligee's agent or attorney if the obligee himself did not authorize it,64 or by a trustee.65

62 Bank of Hindostan v. Smith, 36 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 241. The distinction between this case and those in the preceding note seems trivial. The court may well have been influenced by the fact that there were in this case equitable grounds for holding the defendant not liable, aside from any question of alteration.

63 United States v. Hatch, 1 Paine, 336; Davis v. Carlisle, 6 Ala. 707; Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 46, 52 Pac. 115, 39 L. R. A. 697; Union Oil Co. v. Mercantile Refining Co., 8 Cal. App. 768, 97 Pac. 919; Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192; Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla. 244, 15 So. 770; Probasco v. Shaw, 144 Ga. 416, 87 S. E. 466; Condict v. Flower, 106 Ill. 105; Paterson v. Higgins, 58 Ill. App. 268; State v. Berg, 50 Ind. 496; Eckert v. Louis, 84 Ind. 99; Lee v. Alexander, 9 B. Mon. 25, 48 Am. Dec. 412; Blakey v. Johnson, 13 Bush, 197, 36 Am. Rep. 254; Ramsey v. Utica Deposit Bank, 156 Ky. 263, 160 S. W. 943; Chessman v. Whittemore, 23 Pick. 231; Drum v. Drum, 133 Mass. 566; Church v. Fowle, 142 Mass. 12, 6 N. E. 764; Croft v. White, 36 Miss. 455; Medlin v. Platte Co., 8 Mo. 235, 40 Am. Dec. 135; Moore v. Ivers, 83 Mo. 29; Gurley Bros. v. Bunch, 130 Mo. App. 665, 108 S. W. 1109; Fisherdick v. Hutton, 44 Neb. 122, 127, 62 N. W. 488; Perkins Windmill Co. v. Tillman, 55 Neb. 652, 75 N. W. 1098; Schlageck v. Widhalm, 59 Neb. 541, 81 N. W. 448; Goodfellow

65 Flinn v. Brown, 6 S. Car. 209. But see contra, as to an administrator,

v. Inslee, 1 Beas. 355; Rees v. Overbaugh, 6 Cow. 746; Lewis v. Payn 8 Cow. 71, 18 Am. Dec. 427; Dinsmore v. Duncan, 57 N. Y. 573, 15 Am. Rep. 534; Martin v. Tradesmen's Ins. Co., 101 N. Y. 498, 5 N. E. 338; Evans v. Williamson, 79 N. C. 86; Commonwealth Nat. Bank v. Baughman, 27 Okl. 175, 111 Pac. 332; Whitlock v. Manciet, 10 Oreg. 166; Neff v. Horner, 63 Pa. 327, 3 Am. Rep. 555; Robertson v. Hay, 91 Pa. 242; Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. 327, 103 Atl. 49; Pope v. Chaffee, 14 Rich. Eq. 69; Harrison v. Turbeville, 2 Humph. 242; Boyd v. McConnell, 10 Humph. 68; Columbia Grocery Co. v. Marshall, 131 Tenn. 270, 174 S. W. 1108; Rushing v. Citizens' Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 337; Gould v. Gould (Wash.), 169 Pac. 324; Edwards v. Thompson (Wash.), 169 Pac. 327; Murray v. Peterson, 6 Wash. 418; Union Nat. Bank v. Roberts, 45 Wis. 373. See also cases cited in the following note. So in Ireland, Swiney v. Barry, 1 Jones, 109. Contra, Den v. Wright, 2 Halst. 175, 177.

64 Clyde S. S. Co. v. Whaley, 231 Fed. 76, 79, 145 C. C. A. 264; Forbes v. Taylor, 139 Ala. 286, 25 So. 855; Burgess v. Blake, 128 Ala. 105, 28 So. 963, 86 Am. St. Rep. 78; Langenherger v. Kroger, 48 Cal. 147, 17 Am. Rep. 418; Brooks v. Allen, 62 Ind. 401; Mathias v. Leathers, 99 Ia. 18, 21 68 N. W. 449; C. Shenkberg Co. v. McMurtrey v. Sparks, 71 Mo. App. 126.

The equitable character of the relief given to the holder " where alteration is made by a stranger is shown by the fact that "the alteration of the agent does not destroy the instrument, even when the other contracting party makes the obligation to the agent in his own name supposing him to be the principal. In that case, in the absence of fraudulent concealment on his part, the principal, being the real party in interest, has the right to enforce the contract in its original form upon proof that the nominal payee or obligee was his agent.'

11 67

So far as negotiable instruments are concerned, however, a reversion to the English doctrine in regard to alteration by a

Porter, 137 Iowa, 245, 114 N. W. 890; Vanderford v. Farmers' &c. Bank, 105 Md. 164, 66 Atl. 47, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 129; Tulane Univ. v. O'Connor, 192 Mass. 428, 78 N. E. 494; Nickerson v. Swett, 135 Mass. 514; Broadway Nat. Bank v. Heffernan, 220 Mass. 247, 107 N. E. 921; White Co. v. Dakin, 86 Mich. 581, 49 N. W. 583, 13 L. R. A. 313; Christian County Bank v. Goode, 44 Mo. App. 129; Hays v. Odom, 79 Mo. App. 425; Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227, 10 Am. Rep. 232; Rees v. Overbaugh, 6 Cow. 746; Casoni v. Jerome, 58 N. Y. 315; Martin v. Tradesmen's Ins. Co., 101 N. Y. 498, 5 N. E. 338; Gleason v. Hamilton, 64 Hun, 96, 19 N. Y. S. 103, 138 N. Y. 353, 34 N. E. 283, 21 L. R. A. 210; Waldorf v. Simpson, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 297, 44 N. Y. S. 921; Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 Ohio St. 529; Acme Harvester Co. v. Butterfield, 12 S. Dak. 91, 80 N. W. 170; Port Huron Co. v. Sherman, 14 S. Dak. 461, 85 N. W. 1008; Deering Harvester Co. v. White, 110 Tenn. 132, 72 S. W. 962; Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521; Edwards v. Thompson (Wash.), 169 Pac. 327; Yeager v. Musgrave, 28 W. Va. 90; Jesup v. City Bank, 14 Wis. 331. But see contra, White Sewing Machine Co. v. Saxon, 121 Ala. 399, 25 So. 784; Hollingsworth v. Holbrook, 80 Ia. 151, 45 N. W. 561, 20 Am. St. Rep. 411. (Cf. Mathias v.

Leathers, 99 Ia. 18, 68 N. W. 449); Gettysburg Nat. Bank v. Chisholm, 169 Pa. 564, 32 Atl. 730, 47 Am. St. Rep. 929. See also Pew v. Laughlin, 3 Fed. 39; Bowser v. Cole, 74 Tex. 222, 11 S. W. 1131. In Barton Savings Bank, etc., Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 89 Atl. 639, 641, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 346, the rule was stated in a qualified form: "Where a note is procured by an agent, delivery to whom is delivery to the payee, but whose subsequent authority is limited to the custody and transmission of the writing. . . alterations made by these persons are treated as the acts of a stranger. In this class are Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521; Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 76 Vt. 22, 56 Atl. 87, 104 Am. St. Rep. 915." If the principal seeks to take the benefit of the agent's alteration, the effect is the same as if the principal had himself made the alteration. Nichols v. Rosenfeld, 181 Mass. 525, 63 N. E. 1063; Sherwood v. Merritt, 83 Wis. 233, 53 N. W. 512.

66 Tulane University v. O'Connor, 192 Mass. 428, 78 N. E. 494.

67 Clyde S. S. Co. v. Whaley, 231 Fed. 76, 79, 145 C. C. A. 264, citing Spreng v. Juni, 109 Minn. 85, 122 N. W. 1015; Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227, 10 Am. Rep. 232.

stranger has been brought about by the general enactment of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law. The draftsman of that law copied the section on the subject from the English Bills of Exchange Act.68 But the effect of the statute in changing the previous law is not always noticed.69

§ 1893. Alteration by the obligor, or obligee.

An unauthorized alteration by the obligor is, of course, not allowed to affect the rights of the obligee against him.70 The propriety of relieving an obligee who has altered a written contract by allowing its enforcement according to its original terms and admitting secondary evidence of the contract depends on his freedom from fraudulent or wrongful intent in making the alteration. Therefore, if the alteration was made to express more clearly the intent of the parties or to correct a real or supposed mistake, the contract has, in the United States, generally been held not avoided.71 Similarly, a cancellation by

68 Neg. Inst. Act, § 124 (supra, § 1193), following Bills of Exch. Acts, § 64. See notes to the section in Brannan's Negotiable Instrument Law; Stanford v. Stanford, 87 N. J. Eq., 475, 101 Atl. 388; Hoffman v. Planters' Bank, 99 Va. 480, 39 S. E. 134. But see Jeffrey v. Rosenfeld, 179 Mass. 506, 61 N. E. 49.

69 Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. 327, 103 Atl. 49.

70 Cutts v. United States, 1 Gall. 69; United States v. Spalding, 2 Mason, 478; Lane v. Pacific, etc., Ry. Co., 8 Idaho, 230, 67 Pac. Rep. 656; Osborne v. Andrees, 37 Kan. 301, 15 Pac. 153; Hughes v. Littlefield, 18 Me. 400; Natchez v. Minor, 17 Miss. 544; Diamond v. Inter-Ocean Newspaper Co., 29 Okl. 323, 116 Pac. 773; Fritz v. Commissioners, 17 Pa. 130; Dickenson v. Ramsey, 115 Va. 521, 79 S. E. 1025.

71 Brutt v. Picard, Ryan & M. 37; Winnipisiogee Paper Co. v. New Hampshire Land Co., 59 Fed. 542; Montgomery R. Co. v. Hurst, 9 Ala. 513; Webb v. Mullins, 78 Ala. 111; Benton

v. Clemmons, 157 Ala. 658, 47 So. 582; Exchange Nat. Bank v. Little, 111 Ark. 263, 164 S. W. 731; Turner v. Billagram, 2 Cal. 520; Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal. 294; Sullivan v. California Realty Co., 142 Cal. 201, 75 Pac. Rep. 767; Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 103 Ga. 604, 30 S. E. 558; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334, 40 S. E. 227; Miller v. Slade, 116 Ga. 772, 43 S. E. 69; Shirley v. Swafford, 119 Ga. 43, 45 S. E. 722; Morgan v. Nashville Grain Co., 12 Ga. App. 574, 77 S. E. 913; Day v. Fort Scott Co., 53 Ill. App. 165; Osborn v. Hall, 160 Ind. 153, 66 N. E. 457; Busjahn v. McLean, 3 Ind. App. 281, 29 N. E. 494; Bayse v. McKinney, 43 Ind. App. 422, 87 N. E. 693; Andrews v. Burdick, 62 Ia. 714, 16 N. W. 275; Barlow v. Buckingham, 68 Ia. 169, 26 N. W. 58; Duker v. Franz, 7 Bush, 273, 3 Am. Rep. 314; Thornton v. Appleton, 29 Me. 298; Croswell v. Labree, 81 Me. 44, 16 Atl. 331, 10 Am. St. Rep. 238; Outtoun v. Dulin, 72 Md. 536, 20 Atl. 134; Ames v. Colburn, 11 Gray, 390, 71 Am. Dec. 723; Produce Exchange Trust Co. v. Bieber

mistake has been held not fatal.72 As to negotiable instruments, however, it seems clear that innocence of fraudulent intent will not prevent the application of the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Law invalidating materially altered instruments,72 but the debt and a mortgage given to secure it will not be impaired.726

§ 1894. Authorized alteration-sealed instruments.

As to alterations authorized by the obligor, the common law

bach, 176 Mass. 577, 58 N. E. 162; James v. Tilton, 183 Mass. 275, 67 N. E. 326; Spiering v. Spiering, 138 Minn. 119, 164 N. W. 583; McRaven v. Crisler, 53 Miss. 542; Foote v. Hambrick, 70 Miss. 157, 11 So. 567, 35 Am. St. Rep. 631; Blenkiron Bros. v. Rogers, 87 Neb. 716, 127 N. W. 1062, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 127, Ann. Cas. 1912 A. 1043; Cole v. Hills, 44 N. H. 227; Levy v. Arons, 81 N. Y. Misc. 165, 142 N. Y. S. 312; Styles v. Scotland, 22 N. Dak. 469, 134 N. W. 708; Donnybrook State Bank v. Corbett (N. Dak.), 163 N. W. 275; Seymour v. Mickey, 15 Ohio St. 515; Wallace v. Jewell, 21 Ohio St. 163, 8 Am. Rep. 48; Cline v. Goodale, 23 Oreg. 406, 31 Pac. 956; Wallace v. Tice, 32 Oreg. 283, 51 Pac. 733 (cf. Savage v. Savage, 36 Oreg. 268, 59 Pac. 461); Express Pub. Co. v. Aldine Press, 126 Pa. 347, 17 Atl. 608; Gunter v. Addy, 58 S. C. 178, 36 S. E. 553; McClure v. Little, 15 Utah, 379, 49 Pac. 298, 62 Am. St. Rep. 938; Wolferman v. Bell, 6 Wash. 84, 32 Pac. 1017, 36 Am. St. Rep. 126; Young v. Wright, 4 Wis. 144, 65 Am. Dec. 303; Gorden v. Robertson, 48 Wis. 493, 4 N. W. 579. But there are not a few contrary decisions, Warpole v. Ellison. 4 Houst. 322; Kelly v. Trumble, 74 Ill. 428; Soaps v. Eichberg, 42 Ill. App. 375, 381; Hamilton v. Wood, 70 Ind. 306; Letcher v. Bates, 6 J. J. Marsh. 524, 22 Am. Dec. 92; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. McKernan, 100 Ky. 97, 103, 37 S. W.

490; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo. 449; Barnes-Smith Mercantile Co. v. Tate, 156 Mo. App. 236, 137 S. W. 619; Bowers v. Jewell, 2 N. H. 543; Lewis v. Schenck, 3 C. E. Green, 459; Wegner v. State, 28 Tex. App. 419, 13 S. W. 608; Barton Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 87 Vt. 433, 89 Atl. 639, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 346. See also Green v. Sneed, 96, 101 Ala. 205, 13 So. 277, 46 Am. St. Rep. 119; White Sewing Machine Co. v. Saxon, 121 Ala. 399, 25 So. 784; Capital Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 59; Heath v. Blake, 28 S. Car. 406, 5 S. E. 842; Shiffer v. Mosier, 225 Pa. 552, 74 Atl. 426, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1155, 17 Ann. Cas. 756; Otto v. Halff, 89 Tex. 384, 34 S. W. 910, 59 Am. St. Rep. 56; Gray v. Williams, 91 Vt. 111, 99 Atl. 735.

72 Lowremore v. Berry, 19 Ala. 130, 54 Am. Dec. 188; Brett v. Marston, 45 Me. 401; Russell v. Longmoor, 29 Neb. 209, 45 N. W. 624. See also Chamberlin v. White, 79 Ill. 549.

72a Sec. 124, supra, § 1193. See Peevey v. Buchanan, 131 Tenn. 24, 173 S. W. 447.

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsett »