Skip to main content
· 10/9/1905

Colonial Trust Co. v. Getz

Citations

  • 28 Pa. Super. 619
  • 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 256

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Alteration—Evidence—Province of jury.</p> <p>As notes and bills are intended for negotiation, and as payees do not usually receive them when clogged with impediments to their circulation, there is a presumption that such an instrument starts fair and untarnished, which stands until it is repelled; and a holder ought, therefore, to explain why he took it branded with marks of suspicion which would probably render it unfit for his purpose.</p> <p>When a promissory note “clearly shows.upon its face” that it has been altered in some material part, such as its date or the time or place of payment, it is incumbent on the party producing it and claiming under it to remove the suspicion thus raised as to the genuineness of the instrument by accounting for the alteration. In such a case the note should not be admitted in evidence, except in connection with evidence tending to explain the alteration.</p> <p>But where it is doubtful upon inspection whether there was or was not an alteration, it is not reversible error to admit the note in evidence, so that the jury may pass upon this preliminary question; but in such case they should be instructed that in the event of their finding that there was an alteration it will be their duty to find that the note was avoided as against the indorser, unless the alteration be shown by the evidence to have been made anterior to or at the time of the indorsement, or with the indorser’s consent if made' subsequent thereto, or the case be brought within the last clause of sec. 124 of the act of 1901.</p> <p>In an action upon a promissory note where the sole defense is that the note had been altered after it was indorsed, and no evidence relevant or irrelevant has been given in support of that defense, which brought in question the consideration of a prior original note, or the purpose for which it was given, or the application that was made of its proceeds, evidence that the proceeds of the original note were applied'to

Judges: Beaver, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.