Granite Railway Co. v. Bacon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Granite Railway Co. v. Bacon

32 Mass. 239

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Mass. 239 (Granite Railway Co. v. Bacon) 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

Granite Railway Co. v. Bacon, 32 Mass. 239 (Mass. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. We think the facts do not warrant the defendant in calling this an alteration of the note. No word was added or struck out. Certain words were inserted between two lines, which taken with the original words, and as an addition to them, would be wholly senseless and inoperative. The name of the original payee was not erased, and it cannot be considered that the name of another payee was inserted. The most that can bo inferred is, that it was a proposal to insert the name of another payee, never acceded to, and so the note was not altered; and this is fully explained by the evidence. As mere senseless words written on a subsisting instrument, complete in itself, they did not affect the terms, the effect, or the identity of the contract, and so were immaterial. The jury have found that it was done without fraud. It is therefore not an alteration affecting the validity of the note.

Judgment on the verdict

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

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. We think the facts do not warrant the defendant in calling this an alteration of the note. No word was added or struck out. Certain words were inserted between two lines, which taken with the original words, and as an addition to them, would be wholly senseless and inoperative. The name of the original payee was not erased, and it cannot be considered that the name of another payee was inserted. The most that can bo inferred is, that it was a proposal to insert the name of another payee, never acceded to, and so the note was not altered; and this is fully explained by the evidence. As mere senseless words written on a subsisting instrument, complete in itself, they did not affect the terms, the effect, or the identity of the contract, and so were immaterial. The jury have found that it was done without fraud. It is therefore not an alteration affecting the validity of the note.

Judgment on the verdict

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Mass. 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granite-railway-co-v-bacon-mass-1834.