Miller v. Stark

Citations

• 148 Pa. 164
• 23 A. 1058
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 936

Syllabus

<p>Promissory note — Material alteration — Recovery on original consideration — Surety.</p> <p>An action was brought upon a joint and several promissory note, given for the price of a horse by the purchaser and a surety. It was apparent upon inspection that the date of the note had been altered.</p> <p>Be Id, (1) that if, as contended by plaintiff, the alteration was made before the note came into his hands, he was entitled to a verdict both against the maker and the surety.</p> <p>(2) If the alteration was made by the plaintiff innocently after the note came into his hands, the alteration being material, there could be no recovery against the surety, but the plaintiff would be entitled to recover upon the original consideration (viz., the price of the horse) against the maker.</p> <p>(3) If the alteration was made by the plaintiff, after the note came into his hands, with fraudulent intent, there could be no recovery whatever against maker or surety.</p> <p>Evidence — Promissory note — Alteration of date.</p> <p>Suit having been brought upon a promissory note, the note being offered showed on its face that the date had been altered. Plaintiff in support of the offer testified positively that the alteration was made before the note oame into his hands. The court admitted the note in evidence, leaving it to the jury to determine the truth of plaintiff’s allegation.</p> <p>Held, not to be error.</p>