Case Name: GRIFFITH ASSIGNEE vs. COX
Court: Tennessee Superior Court of Law and Equity
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1806-09
Citations: 1 Overt. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: GRIFFITH ASSIGNEE vs. COX.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
GRIFFITH ASSIGNEE vs. COX.
The defendant gave a note to Wm. Ridgly, about the month of February, 1784. This note appeared to have been assigned to the plaintiff on the 27th August, 1787. The word August appeared to have been inserted in lieu of the word September, which seemed to have been erased—There was proof that this alteration was not on the paper when it came into the plaintiff's hands. The writ issued in June, 1802. Plea non assumpsit infra tres annos. Kennedy contended that there was proof of acknowledgment of the debt, which took it out of the statute, and dispensed with the objection for want of due diligence.
An alteration of the date of an assignment on a note does not destroy the claim of the assignee.
Rhea and Yearsley, argued e contra. Beside by the alteration of the assignment, the date is lost.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The date being lost does not destroy the paper; and though there has been an alteration in the date of the assignment, we are of opinion, that the liability continues upon it. The date does not seem to make an essential part of it, and ought not to be compared to an alteration in a deed, or a material part of a bill of exchange, which in such a case would destroy the validity of the paper.