Case Name: Mitchell, et al. vs. Ringgold
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1810-12
Citations: 3 H. & J. 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mitchell, et al. vs. Ringgold.
Judges: The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Polk and Earle, J. by
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 3
Pages: 159–161

Head Matter:
Mitchell, et al. vs. Ringgold.
Appeal from Washington County Court. .Assumpsit on a promissory note, aud for money had and received. Plea, the general issue.
1. The plaintiffs, (the présent appellants) at the trial, read in evidence a paper purporting to be a promissory note, dated the 3d of July 1804, drawn by the defendant, (now appellee,) in favour of Simon Wilmer, or order, for §3000, and endorsed in blank by Wilmer, It was admitted to have been' signed by the defendant, and endorsed by Wilmer, and that the whole of fhe paper, except the signature of the defendant, was in the hand Writing of Wilmer. The defendant then offered in evidence, from the paper itself, that since it tad passed from his, the defendant’s hands, it had been altered by cutting off and obliterating the date it originally bore, and by giving to it a new and different date, lie then prayed the court to direct the jury, that if they were satisfied that the date of the paper had been altered since it had passed from the hands of the’ defendant, and without his privity and consent, that then the paper offered no ground of action against the defendant, but was as to him a nullity. This opinion and direction the' court gave. The plaintiffs escepteif. '
S. The plaintiffs then, to prove that Wilmer made the alteration in the date of the note, (if any such had been made,) as agent of the defendant, and ivas duly authorised to make the same, and that he, made the same before' the note had been passed to the plaintiffs, read in evidence añ agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant in these words: 4Tn some of the cases against Saniuel Ringgold, the dates of the notes appear to be altered; it is admitted that these alterations were made by Simon Wilmer, while the notes were in his possession, and before he passed them to the plaintiffs.” And to prove that Wilmer had authority from life defendant to alter the date of this note, the plaintiffs read in evidence twenty letters from the defendant to Wilmer, which were admitted to be in the hand writing of the defendant, and’ dated from the 5th of October 1804, to' the 19th óf June 1404, inclusive. Healso read in evidence three notes for §2500, drawn by the defendant in favour of Wilmer, and by him- endorsed, dated, otie the 10th of July 1801, another the' iOtli of May 1803, and the other the 20 th.' of September 1803; also another dated the 5th of May 1804 for Si000. íhe plaintiffs then offered in evidence, that áll the above notes, except the dates, the sums aiid endorsements, arij in- the haiid writing of the defendant, and that the dates, the sums, and endorsements of Wit* trier’s name; are in the hand writing of Wilmer. They also offered in evidence, that the defendant lives ñow, and has lived for 10 yeai-s past, in Washington county. And also offered in evidence by a witness, that he had several times seen irt the hands of Wilmer, notes bearing the signature of the defendant, but whether they had been signed by him he. does not know, as he has never seen him write, and isr not acquainted with his hand writing; that Wilmer had purchased goods of the witness, which were sent to the defendant. The defendant then, to show that the note upon which this suit is brought was transferred by Wilmer to the plaintiffs in discharge and satisfaction of a previous debt due from Wilmer to the plaintiffs, and not for any purpose beneficial to the defendant, read m evidence the deposition of a witness taken by consent. The plaintiffs then prayed the court for their opinion and direction to the jury, that if they find, from the evidence above stated, that the note upon ■which this action is brought has been changed or altered in the dating, but that the changes or alterations were made by Wilmer as the agent of the defendant, while the note was in his possession, and before it had ever been discounted or transferred to any one, and that after the change had been made, he transferred the same to the plaintiffs for a fair and valuable consideration, that in that case the fetters and other proof above mentioned, contain sufficient evidence of authority to Wilmer to make the change, apd the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Upon this prayer the court, (Clagett and Shriver, A. J.) were divided in opinion, and therefore the opinion and direction were not given to the jury. The plaintiffs excepted.
If the date of promissory note is altered after it posses from ike nlaker, and with-put his parity anc consent, the note is a nullity as tef ' him.
Contain letter* from the maker of a promissory note to the payee, were held not to eon® iain sufficient evidence of authority to the - payee to change the date of the note. _ v-.
_ Where a promise sory noíe was delivered by the maker to the pavee , as his a^ent, to be discounted, and it A^as blank as to 'date and sum at the time of the delivery, and the payee filled up the date aud sum* but l/etore he discounted it, and while it continued in &is possession, changed the dat'yand then endorsed it to the plaiiKiff for a fair and bona fide consideration— Ucldt that such change destroyed the va-* luhtywf tin note? av against the ma-'
3. The plaintiffs then prayed the opinion and direction of the court to the jury, that if they find from the evidence that the dating of the note has been 'changed, but that the same was changéd while the note was in the possession of Wilmer, the agent of the defendant, and by him, and afterwards passed to the plaintiffs, that then the letters, and other proof above stated, are evidence to the jury that Wilmer was authorised by the defendant to make the change. The court refused to give this direction. The plaintiff excepted.
4. The plaintiff also prayed the opinion and direction of the court to the jury, that if they find from the evidence that the note was delivered by the defendant to Wihner as his agent, to be discounted in Baltimore, and that the note iva» blank as to date and sum at the time of such delivery, and that fl ilmer filled up the date and stun; bn1 before he discounted the note, and while it continued in ids possession, changed the date to that which it now bears, and then, endorsed it to the plaintiffs for a fair and bona fide consideration, that such change does not destroy the validity of the note; and that if the defendant insists that any other alteration has been made so as to destroy the validity of the notey-it is incumbent on him to prove that it has been made. Upon this prayer the court were divided in opinion, and the direction was consequently refused. The plaintiffs excepted.
5. The opinion prayed by the plaintiffs in this exception was like that in the next preceding exception, except that it also called upon the court to say, that there was no evidence in the cause of any other alteration of the note than that of its date. Upon this prayer the court were also divided in opinion, and the direction was not given. The plaintiffs excepted. Verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Polk and Earle, J. by
Harper, for the Appellants;
and by
Key and T. Buchanan, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
The Court
concurred with the County Court, in the opinions expressed in the several bills ot exceptions.
JUDGMENT Ah'FIRMED, .
See Cordwell vs. Martin, 1 Campb. 79, 81, (note.) 180, b, (note 5.)