Wheadon v. Turregano

Citations

• 112 La. 931
• 36 So. 808
• 1904 La. LEXIS 491

Syllabus

<p>ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS — ^PRESUMPTIONS —LEASE—BURDEN OF PROOF.</p> <p>, 1. Erasures or interlineations in the substantial part of an instrument are presumed to be false or forged, and must be satisfactorily accounted for before the instrument can be received in evidence. This is the civil-law doctrine. McMicken v. Beauchamp, 2 La. 290; Pipes v. Hardesty, 9 La. Ann. 152, 61 Am. Dec. 202.</p> <p>2. The English rule, adopted in some of the states, seems to be different; but, when the circumstances are suspicious, the burden of removing the suspicion is upon the party seeking •to use the instrument. Jones, Law of Evidence, § 578 et seq.</p> <p>3. Where a lease was executed in duplicate, and it appeared that the instrument retained by the lessor showed the erasure of an important clause which was not erased in the duplicate delivered to the lessee, held, that the burden of proof was on the lessor to show that the erasure was made before signing, or with the consent of the lessee.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>