Court Opinion

ID: 3551910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:04:17.972847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:57.301344
License: Public Domain

FROM MERRIMACK CIRCUIT COURT.
Upon the facts found by the referee in this case, I am of opinion that his conclusions of law were correct, and that there should be judgment on the report accordingly is claimed by the plaintiff, in effect, that the note, and the condition written below it on the same piece of paper, are to be regarded as evidence of two distinct contracts, and treated as two separate instruments. I think that view cannot be sustained. The memorandum is entitled "Condition," and its first words are, "This note is given on the following conditions," etc. seems to me beyond all question, that the condition is one part of a single, entire contract, of which the note is the other; that the whole paper together must be treated as a single instrument, and that any division of it, whereby a negotiable promissory note, which had no legal existence before, was created, was such a material alteration as rendered the whole void; that it was, in fact, no less than a forgery, which would render the note thus brought into existence altogether void, even in the hands of a bona fide holder who paid a full consideration for it before maturity. The authorities, in this state and elsewhere, establishing the rule as to the effect of a fraudulent and material alteration or forgery of a negotiable promissory note, are too numerous and too familiar to require citation. My conclusion is, that the plaintiff cannot recover the $250 note, for both the reasons given by the referee. *Page 11