Draper v. Wood

112 Mass. 315
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 112 Mass. 315 (Draper v. Wood) 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
Draper v. Wood, 112 Mass. 315 (Mass. 1873).

Opinion

Morton, J.

In Fay v. Smith, 1 Allen, 477, one of the joint promisors of a note, after it was executed by both and before it was negotiated, altered it by adding the words “ with interest,” and it was held that this alteration avoided the note in the hands of a bond fide holder to whom the payee had indorsed it.

In the case at bar, an equally material alteration was made by one of the joint promisors before the note was passed to the payee. We think the two cases depend upon the same principles. The differences in them pointed out by the plaintiff are in immaterial particulars. It is stated in the opinion in Fay v. Smith, that the words “ with interest ” were added by the procurement of the payee, but it was not contended that the alteration was made with fraudulent intent; and the decision does not turn upon that point. The grounds of the judgment are that the alteration destroyed the identity of the contract into which the defendant entered, and that the note accepted by the payee was a single contract, purporting to bind alike both the promisors, and could not be treated as if it contained two separate agreements, one binding upon the one, and the other upon the other. The fact, also, that the declaration did not contain a count upon the note *s it was before the alteration, was immaterial, and had no effect upon the decision. The same reasons govern the case at bar. The alteration destroyed the identity of the defendant’s contract. He never made the only contract which the plaintiff accepted. [320]*320In the words of the opinion in the case cited, “ the note used he did not execute ; the note which he executed was never used, but was destroyed by the alteration, and another substituted for it."

We are of opinion, therefore, that the ruling of the presiding judge was correct.

The other questions argued by the plaintiff do not appear to have been raised at the trial, and are not open on this bill of exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Eastman Nat. Bank v. Naylor
1928 OK 271 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Anderson Banking Co. v. Chandler
107 S.E. 60 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Palomaki v. Laurell
168 P. 935 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1917)
Sherman v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
110 N.E. 159 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Builders Lime & Cement Co. v. Weimer
170 Iowa 444 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1915)
Herman v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
218 Mass. 181 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson
89 A. 639 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1914)
Bodine v. Berg
82 A. 901 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1912)
Biddeford National Bank v. Hill
66 A. 721 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1907)
Thorpe v. White
74 N.E. 592 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
First National Bank v. Carter
101 N.W. 585 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)
James v. Tilton
67 N.E. 326 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Lee v. Butler
46 N.E. 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Board of County Commissioners v. Gray
63 N.W. 635 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1895)
Flanigan v. Phelps
43 N.W. 1113 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889)
Jones v. Bangs
40 Ohio St. (N.S.) 139 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1883)
Stayner v. Joice
82 Ind. 35 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Cronkhite v. Nebeker
81 Ind. 319 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Hert v. Oehler
80 Ind. 83 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Long v. . Mason
84 N.C. 15 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 Mass. 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/draper-v-wood-mass-1873.