Berks County Trust Co. v. Lyte

Citations

• 250 Pa. 543
• 95 A. 719
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 985

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Explanation of alteration — Place of payment —Burden of proof — Evidence.</p> <p>1. Where in an action of assumpsit brought by the holder against one of two makers of a joint and several promissory note, the copy of the note set out in the statement shows no alteration, and the note presented in evidence shows on its face that the place of payment was altered, and the only evidence in explanation of the alteration was that it was in the same hand writing as the rest of the note and that the other maker when sending the note to the plaintiff had accompanied it by a letter in which he stated that he had changed the note in suit, and that the note in suit was a renewal of a former note, the testimony is insufficient to meet the burden imposed upon the plaintiff of showing that the alteration changing the place of payment was made before the defendant signed it or with his knowledge and consent and therefore the note was not admissible in evidence.</p> <p>2. In such case it was not material that the defendant admitted in his affidavit of defense that he signed “the note in suit” as the note which he admitted he signed was the note a copy of which was set out in the statement, and which was materially different from the note offered in evidence.</p>