Case Name: Ira Page and another, aespondents agt. Daniel Morrell and others, appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1866-09
Citations: 33 How. Pr. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ira Page and another, aespondents agt. Daniel Morrell and others, appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 244–246

Head Matter:
COUBT OF APPEALS.
Ira Page and another, aespondents agt. Daniel Morrell and others, appellants.
Where a promissory note is issued, with the day of the month in blank, the first holder or his transferee, have an implied authority from both makers and indorser, to fill the blank with any day of the month, even though it has ten days less to run than it would have had if it had been dated as of the [day it was made and negotiated.
The date of a note is no exception to the general rule, that an indorsement on a blank note, without sum, or date, or time of payment, will bind the indorser for any sum, payable at anytime, which the person to whom the indorser intrusts it, chooses to insert.
September Term, 1866.
Appeal from a judgment of the supreme court in the fourth district, affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, on the decision of a single judge.
Action against the makers and indorser of a promissory note. Qn the 10th of June, 1859, the defendant Morrell, made the promissory note in suit, dated Canajoharie, June, 1859 (a blank being left for the day of the-month), whereby they promised to pay $50, thirty days after date, with use, to the order of Benjamin K. Nellis, at the Canajoharie Bank. They also procured it to be indorsed by Nellis, for their accommodation. On the same day, they transferred the note for value to one Wiles, and on the 15th day of the same month, Wiles transferred it, for value to the plaintiffs, who, without the knowledge of the makers or indorser, or of Wiles, and without the express direction or consent of either of them, filled the blank in the date with the figure “ 1,” so as to make the date “June 1,1859.” The fourth day of July in that year falling on Monday, the note was duly protested on Saturday, the second of July, and the indorser was charged. Upon these facts, the judge decided that the note was valid against the makers and indorser, notwithstanding the insertion by the plaintiffs of the figure “ 1 ” in the date, and the defendants excepted.
The case is submitted on printed points.
D„ S. Morrell, for the appellants.
James' H. Cook, for the respondents.

Opinion:
James C. Smith, J.
The only question in this case is, whether, as between these parties, the note is rendered invalid, in consequence of its having been antedated by the plaintiffs, after the transfer to them, so that it had ten days less to run than it would have had if it had been dated as of the day when it was indorsed and negotiated to Wiles.
There can be no doubt that if the same day of the month had been inserted by the makers when they negotiated the note to Wiles, without the knowledge of the indorser, the note would not thereby have been rendered invalid, as against the indorser; and so, if the day had been inserted by Wiles, with the express direction or consent of the makers. In such case, the note, when indorsed, being perfect in every respect' but the date, and that having been left blank, the makers would have had an implied authority from the indorser to insert any day of the month they might think proper. (Mitchell agt. Culver, 7 Cow. 336; Mechanics' and Farmers' Bank agt. Schuyler, Id. 337, note) Such authority results from the general rule that an indorsement on a blank note, without sum or date, or time of payment, will bind the indorser for any sum, payable at anytime which the person to whom the indorser intrusts it, chooses to insert. The date of a note is no exception to this rule, although it is not essential to the validity of a note that the date be expressed; for where a note has no date, the time, if necessary, may be inquired into, and will be computed from the day it is issued. But it is essential to the free and uninterrupted negotiability of a note that it should be dated, and, therefore, all the parties to a note intended for circulation, are presumed to consent that the person to whom such a note is intrusted for the purpose of raising money, may fill up the blank with a date.- (Id.) And a blank left for the day of the month may be filled with any day in that month, there being no fraud, or express direction to the contrary.
Upon the same principle, Wiles, to whom the note was delivered by the makers, had an implied authority from both makers and indorser, to fill the blank with any day in the month.
' But it it is claimed by the defendants' counsel, that the implied authority above stated, is restricted to the first holder of a note, and that it was unlawfully exercised by the plaintiffs, to whom the note was transferred in blank by Wiles.
That position cannot be maintained. It is immaterial to the parties to the note, whether the blank in the date was filled by the first holder or his transferee. The latter acquired all the rights of the former in regard to the paper. Until the blank was filled, each successive holder took the note with authority to fill the blank, according to the implied intent of the parties. The reasoning of Justice Bocees upon this point, in the court below, is satisfactory and convincing. The case of English agt. Brauman (5 Ark 377), so far as it .holds to the contrary, is not supported by authority.
Judgment affirmed.