Cape Ann National Bank v. Burns

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cape Ann National Bank v. Burns

129 Mass. 596, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 306

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 24, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 129 Mass. 596 (Cape Ann National Bank v. Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cape Ann National Bank v. Burns, 129 Mass. 596, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 306 (Mass. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The defendant’s omission to deny his signature, as required by the St. of 1877, c. 163, while it prevented him from denying the signature, did not prevent him, under the denial in the answer that he made the promissory note declared on, from insisting that the note had been materially altered since he signed it, nor relieve the plaintiff from the burden of proving that the note remained in the same condition as when the signature was affixed. Lincoln v. Lincoln, 12 Gray, 45. Davis v. Travis, 98 Mass. 222. Simpson v. Davis, 119 Mass. 269.

The unauthorized alteration of the note which was complete upon its face, and which had not been entrusted by the defendant to any one for the purpose of being filled up or added to, could not make him liable to an action upon the note in its altered form. Angle v. Northwestern Ins. Co. 92 U. S. 330. Wade v. Withington, 1 Allen, 561. Greenfield Savings Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196. Goodman v. Eastman, 4 N. H. 455. McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34. Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427. Exceptions overruled,.

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

Gray, C. J.

The defendant’s omission to deny his signature, as required by the St. of 1877, c. 163, while it prevented him from denying the signature, did not prevent him, under the denial in the answer that he made the promissory note declared on, from insisting that the note had been materially altered since he signed it, nor relieve the plaintiff from the burden of proving that the note remained in the same condition as when the signature was affixed. Lincoln v. Lincoln, 12 Gray, 45. Davis v. Travis, 98 Mass. 222. Simpson v. Davis, 119 Mass. 269.

The unauthorized alteration of the note which was complete upon its face, and which had not been entrusted by the defendant to any one for the purpose of being filled up or added to, could not make him liable to an action upon the note in its altered form. Angle v. Northwestern Ins. Co. 92 U. S. 330. Wade v. Withington, 1 Allen, 561. Greenfield Savings Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196. Goodman v. Eastman, 4 N. H. 455. McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34. Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427. Exceptions overruled,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 Mass. 596, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cape-ann-national-bank-v-burns-mass-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack