Baumer v. Dupont

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Baumer v. Dupont

12 A.2d 566, 338 Pa. 193, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 486

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 26, 1940

DocketAppeal, 67

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.2d 566 (Baumer v. Dupont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baumer v. Dupont, 12 A.2d 566, 338 Pa. 193, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 486 (Pa. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the judgment entered following the action of the court below in sustaining a motion for judgment for want of a sufficient reply to new matter. Briefly, the facts admitted by the reply show that plaintiff, the receiver of the First National Bank of Johns-town, is suing upon a note, which was altered by the addition of a seal after the maker’s name, placed there by the maker at the request of a former receiver of the *194 bank, without the assent or knowledge of defendant, the endorser on the note. The seal was added after the execution,. delivery, and endorsement of the note, and after its due date, while the note was in the bank’s possession.

The learned court below very properly held that under these circumstances defendant was no longer liable on the note. The addition of a seal to the maker’s name without defendant’s knowledge or consent was a material alteration (Bowman v. Berkey, 262 Pa. 411), and its effect was to avoid the instrument, except as against a party who had himself made, authorized or assented to the alteration, and subsequent endorsers: Negotiable Instruments Act of May 16, 1901, P. L. 194, section 124; see Philadelphia National Bank v. Buchmam, 314 Pa. 343, 350.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the judgment entered following the action of the court below in sustaining a motion for judgment for want of a sufficient reply to new matter. Briefly, the facts admitted by the reply show that plaintiff, the receiver of the First National Bank of Johns-town, is suing upon a note, which was altered by the addition of a seal after the maker’s name, placed there by the maker at the request of a former receiver of the *194 bank, without the assent or knowledge of defendant, the endorser on the note. The seal was added after the execution,. delivery, and endorsement of the note, and after its due date, while the note was in the bank’s possession.

The learned court below very properly held that under these circumstances defendant was no longer liable on the note. The addition of a seal to the maker’s name without defendant’s knowledge or consent was a material alteration (Bowman v. Berkey, 262 Pa. 411), and its effect was to avoid the instrument, except as against a party who had himself made, authorized or assented to the alteration, and subsequent endorsers: Negotiable Instruments Act of May 16, 1901, P. L. 194, section 124; see Philadelphia National Bank v. Buchmam, 314 Pa. 343, 350.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.2d 566, 338 Pa. 193, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baumer-v-dupont-pa-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack