Case Name: ELIAS v. WHITNEY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-04-27
Citations: 98 N.Y.S. 667
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELIAS v. WHITNEY.
Judges: Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and TRUAX and BISCHOFF, JJ.
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 98
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
(50 Misc. Rep. 326)
ELIAS v. WHITNEY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
April 27, 1906.)
Bills and Notes — Altered Checks — Holder in Due Course — Negotiable Instruments Law.
Negotiable Instruments Law, Laws 1897, p. 732, c. 612, § 91, provides that a holder in due course is a holder who has taken an instrument which is complete and regular on its face. Held that, where a mere inspection of a cheek showed that it had been altered, a purchaser thereof took with notice of the infirmity, and was not a holder in due course.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 7, Cent. Dig. Bills and Notes, § 839.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
Action by Joseph Elias against Leon A. Whitney. From a Municipal Court order setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and ordering a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and TRUAX and BISCHOFF, JJ.
Adolph Block, 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 (Laws 1897, p. 745, c. 612), he may enforce payment on the check, according to its' original tenor. Section 91, p. 732, 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, P. J., concurs.