Vose v. Dolan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Vose v. Dolan

108 Mass. 155

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 Mass. 155 (Vose v. Dolan) 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

Vose v. Dolan, 108 Mass. 155 (Mass. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Colt, J.

Upon the question submitted by the report of the referee, we are clearly of opinion that evidence of the means taken to ascertain the quantity of earth, gravel and stone which was to be removed under the contract of April 14, and of the subsequent filling of the blanks in the note and sealed instrument with the ascertained amounts, was properly received by him; and that the instrument containing the terms of the contract was binding upon the defendant as his deed, notwithstanding the subsequent filling of the blanks. It was a completed, intelligible contract when it was executed. The existence of the blanks did not impair its validity. The quantity of earth sold was definitely indicated by reference to specifications and profiles, and it was not necessary to state the number of squares sold or the price to be paid for them. That was a matter of computation from data given. If the blanks had been left, the rights of the parties would have been the same as if filled before delivery. The alleged alteration of the instrument was therefore an immaterial alteration, in no way changing its terms or enlarging the defendant’s liability under it. There is no pretence that it was fraudulently made; on the contrary, the blanks were filled by the surveyor, in accordance with the agreement of the parties at the time the deed was executed.

It is now well settled that an immaterial alteration of a sealed instrument, not fraudulent, will not invalidate it, though made by the party claiming under it. Brown v. Pinkham, 18 Pick. 172. Commonwealth v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 98 Mass. 12. Chessman v. Whittemore, 23 Pick. 231. Adams v. Frye, 3 Met. 103. The case is not within those in which it is held that [159]*159blanks in a deed constituting a material part of the instrument itself cannot, in the absence of the maker, be filled by paroi authority, because authority to make a deed must be given by deed. Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305. Basford v. Pearson, 9 Allen. 387.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Colt, J.

Upon the question submitted by the report of the referee, we are clearly of opinion that evidence of the means taken to ascertain the quantity of earth, gravel and stone which was to be removed under the contract of April 14, and of the subsequent filling of the blanks in the note and sealed instrument with the ascertained amounts, was properly received by him; and that the instrument containing the terms of the contract was binding upon the defendant as his deed, notwithstanding the subsequent filling of the blanks. It was a completed, intelligible contract when it was executed. The existence of the blanks did not impair its validity. The quantity of earth sold was definitely indicated by reference to specifications and profiles, and it was not necessary to state the number of squares sold or the price to be paid for them. That was a matter of computation from data given. If the blanks had been left, the rights of the parties would have been the same as if filled before delivery. The alleged alteration of the instrument was therefore an immaterial alteration, in no way changing its terms or enlarging the defendant’s liability under it. There is no pretence that it was fraudulently made; on the contrary, the blanks were filled by the surveyor, in accordance with the agreement of the parties at the time the deed was executed.

It is now well settled that an immaterial alteration of a sealed instrument, not fraudulent, will not invalidate it, though made by the party claiming under it. Brown v. Pinkham, 18 Pick. 172. Commonwealth v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 98 Mass. 12. Chessman v. Whittemore, 23 Pick. 231. Adams v. Frye, 3 Met. 103. The case is not within those in which it is held that [159]*159blanks in a deed constituting a material part of the instrument itself cannot, in the absence of the maker, be filled by paroi authority, because authority to make a deed must be given by deed. Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305. Basford v. Pearson, 9 Allen. 387.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 Mass. 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vose-v-dolan-mass-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack