Case Name: Laura A. Emerick, Executrix of the Will of Walter M. Emerick, deceased, vs. Walter O. Pierson and William Crisp
Court: Allegan County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1869-10
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. 29
Docket Number: 
Parties: Laura A. Emerick, Executrix of the Will of Walter M. Emerick, deceased, vs. Walter O. Pierson and William Crisp.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 29–31

Head Matter:
Laura A. Emerick, Executrix of the Will of Walter M. Emerick, deceased, vs. Walter O. Pierson and William Crisp.
Where, in a suit, in Justice’s Court, brought upon a promissory note, the defendaut seeks to avoid liability, on the ground that such note has been changed to a greater sum, after its execution, he must, at the time of joining issue, deny the execution of the note, on oath.
October Term,
Allegan County.
This is an appeal from a Justice of the Peace.
Suit was brought to recover on a note, of which the following is a copy :
“ $204. Plainwell, July 18, 1868.
“Sixty days alter date, I promise to pay to the order of
“Walter M. Emerick or bearer, two hundred and four dollars, “ value received, at ten per cent."
“Walter O. Pierson,
William Crisp.”
The note was filed with the Justice, as plaintiff’s declaration. Upon its face it showed that the figure “ 4 ” in “ $204,” had been written over a figure “ 2and that the word “ four ” in the body of the note had been written over the word “ two.” Neither the figure “ 2 ’’ nor the word “ two ’’ had been erased. The note was given for money loaned to Pierson, who did not appear to defend the suit. The defendant, Crisp, sought to avoid his liability on the note, by showing, by his own testimo' ny, that the change was made after he signed it, by Pierson.
Under the plea of the general issue, the defendants had given notice that they would give in evidence proof to establish the alleged alteration; and on the trial sought to introduce such evidence.
Stafford & Padgam, for Plaintiff; J. W. Hawes and F. J. Little-john,, of Counsel.
J. V. Rogers, for Defendant; J. W. Stone, of Counsel.

Opinion:
•Brown, J.
The defendant, Crisp, to avail himself of the defehce which he claims, should have denied the execution of the note, on oath, at the time of joining issue in the Justice's Court. If the note has been changed from $202, to $204, it is, though on the same paper, to all intents, a different note.
A promissory note is but a premise to pay money, reduced to writing — a note of promise. Take away the promise, and the note is destroyed. A promise to pay $202, is not an agreement to pay $204. It is another and different undertaking.
The indebtedness, in this case, is alleged to be upon a note for $204. Did the defendants sign a note for that amount? If not, They should have denied its execution in the manner provided by C. L. ^ 3714, 3767.
The proof offered is inadmissible, on an other ground — it relates to matters which, if true, were probably equally within the knowledge of Walter M. Emerick, deceased. Sess. L. 1861. p. 169; 16 Mich., 211.
Judgment for plaintiff.