Case Name: Joseph Elias, Appellant, v. Leon A. Whitney, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-04
Citations: 50 Misc. 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Elias, Appellant, v. Leon A. Whitney, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 326–328

Head Matter:
Joseph Elias, Appellant, v. Leon A. Whitney, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
April, 1906.)
Negotiable instruments — Bona fide holders — What constitutes — Notice of equities generally — Appearance of alteration.
Where a mere inspection of a cheek shows that its date has been changed, a purchaser thereof, under section 41 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, has notice of its infirmity and cannot recover thereon as a holder in due course within section 91 of said law.
Appeal from an order entered in the office of the clerk of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, Eighth District, borough of Manhattan, setting aside a verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant and ordering a new trial.
Adolph Bloch, for appellant.
Smith & Bowman, for respondent.

Opinion:
Truax, J.
The evidence showed that the check in suit had been changed before it reached the plaintiff, and that a mere inspection of the check showed such change. There is no evidence showing that the defendant authorized or assented to the alteration, but the appellant says that he is " a holder in due course " and not a party to the alteration, and that, under section 205 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, he may enforce payment on the check, according to its original tenor. Section 91 of the Negotiable Instruments Law states what constitutes a holder in due course. According to that section, a holder in due course is a holder who has taken an instrument that is complete and regular on its face. This instrument was not complete and regular on its face at the time plaintiff took it. As we have stated before, a mere inspection of the instrument showed its defect; and, therefore, under subdivision 41 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, plaintiff had notice of an infirmity in the instrument at the time he took it.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
Scott, J., concurs.