The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1877-06-16
Important Bankrupt Decision.

B. F. M Hurley, register in Bank
ruptcy for this district, in a case be-
fore him decided that where the
holder Of note make an alteration in
its date he avoid the instrument,
even though the alteration was in
truth, the correction of mistake
and was so intended.
The claimant held a promissory
note made by the bankrutcy preyi-
Gus to his bankruptcy for the sum of
$500, and dated January 5, 1877:
At a meeting Of the creditors of
the bankrupt for the purpose of prov
ing their claims and for the selec-
ton of an assignee it was objected,
that the note was avoided by the
alteration, and thereupon the claim
ant proved that the alteration was
honestly made in a mere correction
of a mistake. AS the decision is one
of importance to the business men we
give the opinion in full.
REGISTERS OPINION.
Where an alteration of bond, bill
or note is made by the voluntary act
of the creditor and increases or in.
juriOusly affects the res possibility of
the debtor; whatever the motive for
it the security is gone. The rule il
founded in policy to protest the debt
or from acts prejudical to him hard to
be guarded against, and done in his
absence, and without his agency or
consent; but it is applicable to an al
teration which bears the legal effect
of the instrument as it was before, as
was held in Hunt VS.. Adams. 6
Mass, h19 Nevins VS.. DeGrand, 15
Mass, 1876.
When there can be no wrong, the
policy of protection has no place.
But in no other case can the bona
fides of an unauthorized alteration of
security in the hands of the holder
purge it Of its ostensible impurity.
There is class of cases apparently
inconsistent with the rule just jndi-
Gated but not actually so. In those
an interlineatiOn or an erasure has
been explained by showing it to have
been made before the bill had been
accepted or the note negotiated, or
that it had received the assent of the
parties interested, but in this respect
it has received no more indulgence
than an eraSure or alteration of a
deed before delivery. On the subject
of the alteration in the body of note
the decisions are harmonious, but on
the subject of adding to the evidence
OfattestatiOn they are not entirely
so. The law no more abhors oral evil
dence to explain the words of a writ
ten contract than it abhors it to show
what were the words Themselves
when the contract was executed. The
danger from it in either way is the
same.
But to tolerate an attempt to re-
form secuity by the rash and it,
may be secret act of the creditor
would change the position of the
debtor, subject him to risk and
trouble which ought not be imposed
on him.
1t would compel him to encounter
the perils of parol proof, not only to
establish the lact ofalteration, but to
show what the instrument originally
was. and that done to meet the credi-
tors proof of bone fides. Ought a
faultless party to be invoked in such
contest out of tenderness to an ignO-
rant and presumptuous creditor, or to
be exposed to the untruthfulness of
witnesses ?
1t is a familiar principle that par
ticular hardship shall be born by him
whose act was the cause of it.
The alteration of the date in this
instance did not retard the day of