Van Brunt v. Eoff

New York Supreme Court

Van Brunt v. Eoff

35 Barb. 501, 1861 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 161

New York Supreme Court·Decided September 16, 1861·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Ingraham, J.

The alteration of the date of the note, made by the agent of the maker under the supposition that he had authority to make such an alteraron,. [502]*502did not render the note void. If there was no authority to make such an alteration, the note would still be a subsisting obligation, as it was before it was altered.

[New York General Term, September 16, 1861.

The judge erred in holding the note to be void, where there was no evidence of a fraudulent intent.

Hew trial ordered; costs to abide the event.

Clerke, Ingraham and Leonard, Justices.]

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

By the Court, Ingraham, J.

The alteration of the date of the note, made by the agent of the maker under the supposition that he had authority to make such an alteraron,. [502]*502did not render the note void. If there was no authority to make such an alteration, the note would still be a subsisting obligation, as it was before it was altered.

[New York General Term, September 16, 1861.

The judge erred in holding the note to be void, where there was no evidence of a fraudulent intent.

Hew trial ordered; costs to abide the event.

Clerke, Ingraham and Leonard, Justices.]

Van Brunt v. Eoff, 35 Barb. 501, 1861 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 161 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1861).

Pincite

35 Barb. 501 (Van Brunt v. Eoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related