Case Name: Louise Meise, Respondent, v. John H. Doscher and Another, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-01
Citations: 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 580
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louise Meise, Respondent, v. John H. Doscher and Another, Appellants.
Judges: Yan Brunt, P. J., concurred in the result.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 90
Pages: 580–586

Head Matter:
Louise Meise, Respondent, v. John H. Doscher and Another, Appellants.
Indorsement of a note in blank —extent of the authority thereby conferred to fill in blanks therein — additions which vitiate the note as to the indorser — the question of payment is for the jury.
The indorsement óf a note in blank and the delivery of the same by the indorser is, in legal effect, an authorization to the person, to whom the note is delivered, to fill up the blanks therein; but if, in addition to filling up the blanks in the printed note, the words “ with interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, .payable semi-annually,” be added thereto in the presence of the maker and the holder thereof, such insertion operates to invalidate the note as between. the indorser and the holder in the absence of proof of authority conferred by the indorser to make such addition to the note. Per Parker, J.
Upon the trial of an action brought upon a promissory note, the defendant testified that he gave a check for a certain amount, personally, to the plaintiff, and the cashier of the bank upon which the check was alleged to. have been drawn testified that about that time the bank paid for .the defendant and charged to his account a check in that amount; the defendant also testified that he was unable to produce the check because it had been burned up. The plaintiff denied having received the check, or that the defendant at that or any other time gave her a check in such an amount.
Held, that an issue was raised upon the question of payment which should have been submitted to the jury. Per Parker, J.
O’Brien, J., dissenting.
Appeal by tlie defendants, John H. Doscber and another, from a judgment of tbe Supreme Court in favor of tbe plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 18th day of October, Í894, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Circuit.
Joseph G. Rosenbamm, for the appellants.
J. George Flcmnmer, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Parker, J.:
McGrath v. Clark (56 N. Y. 34) and Farmers' National Bank v. Thomas (79 Hun, 595) are not distinguishable from the case presented by this record and require that the judgment shall be reversed, as to the defendant Newman. About January 30,1891, the defendant Henry Newman, at the request of John H. Doscher, who was engaged in business under the name of Doscher & Co., indorsed a note in blank and delivered it to Doscher.
The printed matter, upon the face of it, was like that in general use, and its delivery to Doscher had the legal effect of an authorization to him to fill up the blanks. But, in addition to filling up the blank spaces, there was also inserted the words " with interest at .the rate of five per cent per annum, payable semi-annually." All the writing upon the face of the note, with the exception of the signature of " Doscher and Company," was placed thereon by the plaintiff's attorney in her and Doscher's presence. Unless then there was other authority, in respect to the form of the note con ferred upon. Doscher by Newman than is evidenced by the delivery of the blank indorsed by him, the insertion of the provision relating to interest operated to invalidate the note as between this plaintiff and Newman.
The evidence does not suggest that at the time of this indorsement in blank Doscher and Newman discussed the matter at all. Indeed, the only evidence tending in that direction even consists ofk the fact that the three notes surrendered by the plaintiff, at the time the note in suit was given, also drew interest at the rate of five per cent per annum.
Newman testified that he had indorsed other notes in blank for Doscher, and whether the notes then held by plaintiff were so indorsed or whether Newman was to take them up, and, if so, whether Newmian was aware of the addition of the words relating to interest, the record is silent. Indeed, there is no evidence that Newman knew that this note was given to the plaintiff as a renewal of other notes, or that he had any information of the particular use which was to be made of it by Doscher.
Under this evidence, therefore, it is at least doubtful whether there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury upon the question whether authority was given Doscher to fill in the words .relating to interest, but we need not consider that question, as perhaps a different state of facts may be shown on the retrial.
As between the plaintiff and the defendant Doscher, the question of payment should have been submitted to the jury. The defendant Doscher testified that he gave a check for $1,562.50, personally, into the hands of the plaintiff, and the cashier of the bank upon which it was alleged to have been drawn testified that at about that time the bank paid for the defendant Doscher and charged to his account a check in that amount.
The defendant Doscher said he was unable to produce the cheek, because it had been burned up. Plaintiff denied having received the check, or that the defendant Doscher, at that or any other time, gave her a check in such an amount. There was other evidence bearing upon the question, but we have referred to enough of it to make it clear that it was for the jury to say whether the defendant Doscher paid to the plaintiff the sum testified to by him by means of a check. The exception taken by the defendants to the refusal of the court to submit that question to the jury was well taken.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.
Yan Brunt, P. J., concurred in the result.