Case Name: Smith, Appellant, v. Ferry
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1878-10
Citations: 69 Mo. 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smith, Appellant, v. Ferry.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Smith, Appellant, v. Ferry.
Presumptions as to date of Indorsements. The general rule is that an indorsement of payment on a promissory note is presumed to have been made at the time the indorsement bears date; but this presumption ceases if there be any thing in the indorsement indicative of alteration.
Appeal from Vernon Circuit Court. — IIon. J. D. Parkinson, J udge.
This was a suit commenced June 24th, 1875, on a promissory note executed May 13th, 1862. On the back of the note was this indorsement: “ August 5th, 1865, credit the within note §25.” Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Plaintiff' relied upon the indorsement to prove partial payment and acknowledgment of the debt within ten years. There was no other evidence of the alleged payment. Defendant insisted that the indorsement appeared to have been tampered with, and that its date had beeD altered from 1863 to 1865. The plaintiff prayed the court to declare the law as follows : 1. “ The presumption is that the indorsement was made at the time it purports to bear date, and the burden of proving the date to be false lies with the defendant.” The court refused the prayer. There was a finding and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff" appealed.
John B. Walker for appellant.
Scott &¡ Stone for respondent.

Opinion:
Sherwood, C. J.
In general indorsements made upon promissory notes are presumed to have been made at the time such indorsements bear date. Horton v. Bayne, 52 Mo. 531. If, however, there be any thing in the indorsement indicative of alteration, the usual presumption ceases, and it then devolves upon the holder of the paper to explain that which is apparently suspicious. Mathews v. Coalter, 9 Mo. 696; Patterson v. Fagan, 38 Mo. 70: 1 Greenl. Ev., § 564 and cases cited. Eor this reason no error occurred in the refusal of plaintiff's first declaration of law. The case of Carter, Adm. of English, v. Carter, 44 Mo. 195, by no means militates against the herein expressed views, and the judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
Arrirmed.