Case ID: scl_3/html/0307-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1803.
    Mouchet v. Cason & Hill.
    In an action upon a promissory note, evidence is admissible to shew, that an iuierlineatinn, subsequent to the date, was made innocently, and without any intention to projud.ce the makers.
    Where the surname of the payee was interlined subsequently to the delivery ot a pronnssory note, but it was proved that the note was originally given to the payee whose name was inserted ; lield, that the alteration was not material, and did not vitiate the note,
    
      Assumpsit on a promissory note, tried in Abbeville district, before Treüevant, J. The note produced in evidence ap. peared to have been made payable to “ Barbara,” and the surname “ Mouchet” interlined afterwards by another hand. The sub. scribing witness to the note, proved that it was given by the de. fondants to the plaintiff, and proved also the consideration for which it was given. The plaintiff offered evidence to shew that the surname of the payee was interlined by an indifferent person, with, outthe procurement of the plaintiff, -'hrougb ignorance, and without any design to injure the defendants. It appeared, however, to have been done with the knowledge and acquiescence of the plaintiff. The court would .mi admit any such exphu-y. >rv evidence to be given, but held the alteration to be .fatal, and ordered S rpipisiiit.
    
      "^10 motion in this court was to set aside the nonsuit, and to obtain a new trial.
    Bowie, for the plaintiff,
    cited 5 Rep. 23. 1 Morg. Ess. I64r 11 Rep. 23. I Esp. Dig. 252. r
    , s - , Dunlap, for the defendant.
   The court were of opinion, that evidence ought to have beep admitted, to shew that the insertion of the word “Mouchet”was done innocently, without any intention to benefit the plaintiff, to the prejudice of the defendants.-

The court were also of opinion, that the insertion was not material under the circumstances of the case, as it could be proved, and was proven at the trial, that the note was actually given by th® defendants to the plaintiff: and a recovery might have been had upon it, without adding the surname in the note.

New trial ordered.

Note. If there be any blemish in a deed by erasure, &c. it ought to be pro? ved, although it be of the age which otherwise would prove itself. 1 Lofft’® Gilb. 104. To make a bill of exchange void for an alteration, it must be iq material part, as in the sum or date. 3 Esp. Rep. 57.