Jefferson Bank v. Frankenstein

110 N.Y.S. 1104

This text of 110 N.Y.S. 1104 (Jefferson Bank v. Frankenstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jefferson Bank v. Frankenstein, 110 N.Y.S. 1104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These actions were brought on two promissory notes made by Anna Rosenthal, the maker. The defendants (appellants) were indorsers. It is claimed that the notes were materially altered, and that this alteration was made after defendants had indorsed the notes. This alteration, it is claimed, consists in an alteration in the number of months in which the notes became due. An inspection of the notes themselves shows that they have been altered in this particular. The defendants testify that all the handwriting in the notes, including the alleged alteration, was in the handwriting of the maker. There was evidence which justified the finding in the court below that the maker, after the notes were indorsed, had no opportunity to make any alterations in the notes before they were given to the plaintiff for discount. Of course, if this is the case, the alterations must then be presumed to have been made before the notes were indorsed by defendants. The finding of the court below on this point will not be disturbed and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 N.Y.S. 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferson-bank-v-frankenstein-nyappterm-1908.