The national Republican., 1867-01-18
The Courts.
SUPREME CoURT OF THE USITED STATES.

SUPREME CoURT OF THE UNITED STATES
THuRsDAY, Jan. II, 1857.
On motion Of Mr.. 0'Conor, John slosson, Rsq.,
Of the city Of New York, was admitted an attorney
and counsellor Of this court.
On motion Of Mr.. Garfield, John M. Langston,
Esq, Of the State Of Ohio, was admitted an attor
ney and counsellor Of this court.
On motion Of Mr.. Hamilton, Charles Il. Moss,
Esq Of st. Louis, Mo, was admitted IN attorney
and counsellor OF this court.
On motion Of Mr. Cofey, Robert Palethorpe
Esq, Of Philadelphia Pa, was admitted an attor-
ney and counsellor Of this court.
No. 103. The United States appellants, VS.. @.
A. Weed, ct al. The argument Of this cause was
concluded by Mr.. Ashton, Assistant Attorney Gen.
sral, Of counsel for appellants
No. 1906. Solomon 7. Nicoll 4 Co., appellants, vs..
The United States-appeal from the Court Of
Claims. This appeal was dismissed for the want Of
Jurisdiction.
No. lO6. The Howard Fire Insurance Company,
cause was argued by Mr.. Fessenden, Of counsel for
the plaintiff In error and submitted on q printed
argument by Mr. Rand, Of counsel for the defend.
ant In error.
No. l0s. William A. Haddsn, OF al, plaintiffs
In error VS.. Hiram Barney, collector, DO. The ar
gument In this cause was commenced BY Mr.. Slos.
son. Of counsel for the PLAINTIFF in error continued
BY Mr. Attorney General Stanbery, Of counsel for
the defendants In error, and concluded by Mr..
slosson for the plaintiffs in error.
NO, iOf. First case for argument tomorrow.
Adjourned until tomorrow at II o'clock.
PromissoTy Nots-Doss Change Of Date AJier
Endorsement, Without the Assent Of tho EndOyssr,
Avotd His Liabihty?-John Wood, Plaintiff in
Error, o. FSankhn Sterls-This cause came here
| from the Circuit Court for Minnesota, by writ oi
error founded on bill Of exceptions the principal
and chief Of which was TO the ruling Of the court
that tho alteration OF promissory note after the
signature Of the endorsor and before tho delivery
to the payee, so as to change the time Of payment
without the assent Of the endorser relieved tho lat
| ter from all obligation thereon.
The facts are as follows; Newson, one Of the de
fendants wishing to effect loan, drew and signed
/ q note In blank, dated September, payable onI
year after date, which Steele signed as sndorser
Before the delivery Of the note to the payee, Wood
the word September" was erased and October
llth" was inserted. Steele received no part Of th,
money, his name being lent merely to accommodate
Nswson, the real borrower.
The plaintiff In error contends that an alteration
or interineation in prOmissory note Is immateria
| II made before the same Is issued and that not'
10 not issued until II Is delivered to party entitled
to claim upon it, and that there no delivery II
this case until the note was placed in the hands
| Wood. The signing and endorsing Of the note anC
Its delivery by Steele to Newson, with tho date II
blank, was authority to Newson to fill In the tru
date on negotiating It. An alteration Of q note o
instrument, In the uSual legal aoesptation Of th'
term, 10 one made by some party claiming upon o
entitled under such note or Instrument and not b,
a stranger or BY the obligors.
The defendant In error maintains that the altsra
tion Of q written obligation, not assented to by tn
party sought 10 be made liable under II. renders !
void 81 to him.