Case ID: barb_35/html/0501-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Ingraham, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Van Brunt and Slaight vs. Eoff.
    The alteration of the date of a promissory note, made by the agent of the maker under the supposition that he has authority to make such alteration, will not render the note void, in the absence of any proof of a fraudulent intent.
    ACTION on a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the order of the plaintiffs. The note sued on was dated September 5, payable twelve months from date, at the Broadway Bank. The note, when made by the defendant, was dated September 13, and was altered by a person named Clinton, acting as the defendant’s agent, in the presence of the plaintiffs, but in ¿the absence of the defendant, to September 5. The plaintiffs were insurance brokers. This note was transferred to them by Clinton for the premium on a policy procured by them from the Globe Insurance Company, on the interest of the defendant in the schooner Moonlight. The policy was dated September 5. The defendant paid them a commission for effecting the insurance. Clinton was the defendant’s agent in effecting the insurance; and he altered the date of the note from the 13th to the 5th of September, before the delivery of the note, to make it correspond with the date of the policy of insurance. Clinton supposed himself authorized to make the alteration, as incidental to his agency in effecting the insurance.
    On the trial the court dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the note had been altered without the consent of the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment.
    
      R. H. Huntley, for the appellants.
    
      G. Dean, for the respondent.
   By the Court, Ingraham, J.

The alteration of the date of the note, made by the agent of the maker under the supposition that he had authority to make such an alteraron,. did not render the note void. If there was no authority to make such an alteration, the note would still be a subsisting obligation, as it was before it was altered.

[New York General Term,

September 16, 1861.

The judge erred in holding the note to be void, where there was no evidence of a fraudulent intent.

Hew trial ordered; costs to abide the event.

Clerke, Ingraham and Leonard, Justices.]