Case ID: scl_10/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Benjamin Pepoon ads. Jacob D. Stagg & Co.
    The insertion of the’ words, “or order,” in a promissory note, by the holder, destroys its validity.
    
    No precise form of words is necessary to constitute a promissory note. An.
    
    This case was tried before Mr. Justice Smith, at Charleston.
    It was an action of assumpsit on a due bill, made by the defendant to the plaintiffs. When produced in evidence, it was in the following words : “ Due Messrs. Jacob D. Stagg & Co. or order one hundred and thirty-five dollars, payable on demand. Signed Benj. Pepoon.” '
    It appears in evidence, that the words, “ or order," were not inserted in the bill originally, and that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to permit him to insert them, with a view to negotiate it; but he expressly refused his assent. The plaintiff, notwithstanding, did insert them.
    Several grounds of defence were stated in the brief to have been taken on the trial, in the Circuit Court, and among others, that the insertion of the “ or order," was such an alteration as destroyed the validity of the note.
    The jury, however, under the direction of the presiding Judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff, and a motion was now made for a new trial, on the part of the defendant, on the ground :
    That the insertion of the words, or order, in the bill, ^without the consent of the defendant, is such an alteration, in a material part, as wholly destroyed the validity of the bill, and that the plaintiff was not therefore entitled to recover.
    
      
       2 vol. 585.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Johnson, J.

It has not been denied in the argument, and numerous authorities prove, that an alteration.in a bill of exchange, or” promissory note, in a material part, without the consent of the drawer, will discharge him from all liability on it. (Chitty on Bills, 85.) The due bill, in this case, as it originally stood, without the words, or order, was not negotiable, either by the custom of merchants or the statute of Ann. And that the negotiability of a paper, in mercantile transactions, is material and important, will not be questioned.

Tepoon and White, for motion. Cross, contra

But it has been suggested, that even with the words, or order, the bill not negotiable, not being a promissory note, within the statute of Ann ; and that, therefore, the alteration was immaterial, as it did not change the nature and character of the writing. No precise form of words is necessary to constitute a promissory note ; it is sufficient if it amount to a promise or undertaking to pay unconditionally. A “ promise to account with J. S. or order “ I acknowledge myself indebted to A. & Co., to be paid on demand,” have been held to be promissory notes, within the meaning of the statute of Ann. (1 Selwyn’s N. P. 395.) It appears to me impossible to distinguish the present case from the last. The word due, is clearly an acknowledgment of a- subsisting debt, and the words, payable on demand, necessarily imply a promise to pay.

I am, therefore, of opinion that the motion for a new trial ought to prevail.

Nott, Ooecock, Cheyes and Gantt, JJ., concurred. 
      
       See 2 Bail. 359.