Mersman v. Werges’s Empirical Analysis
112 U.S. 139 · 1884
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1938 · most notably Dodge v. Tulleys (1892), Produce Exchange Trust Co. v. Bieberbach (1900)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sheldon v. Sill · Miller v. Stewart · Smith v. United States · Angle v. North-Western Mutual Life Insurance · Wood v. Steele
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The present case is not one of a change in the terms of the contract, as to amount or time of payment, but simply of tlie effect of adding another signature, without otherwise altering or defacing the note. An erasure of the name of one of several obligors is a material alteration of tbe contract of the others, because it increases the amount which each of them may be held to contribute. Martin v. Thomas, 24 How. 315 , 16 L. Ed. 689 ; Smith v. U. S., 2 Wall. 219 , 17 L. Ed. 788 . And tbe addition of a new person as a principal maker of a promissory note, rendering all tbe promisors apparently jointly and equally liable, not only to the holder, but also as between themselves, and so far tending to lessen the ultimate liability of the original maker or makers, has been held in the courts of some of the states to be a material alteration. Shipp v. Suggett, 9 B. Mon. 5 ; Henry v. Coats, 17 Ind. 161 ; Wallace v. Jewell, 21 Ohio St 163 ; Hamilton v. Hooper, 46 Iowa, 515 . However that may he, yet where the signature added, although in form that of a joint promisor, is in fact that of a surety or guarantor only, the original maker is, as between himself and tbe surety, exclusively liable for tbe whole amount, and his ultimate liability to pay that amount is neither increased nor diminished; and, according to the general current of the American authorities, the addition of the name of a surety, whether before or after the first negotiation of the note, is not such an'alteration as d”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract, and substitutes a different agreement for that into wbicb'he'entered. In the application of this rule, it is not only well settled that a material alteration of a promissory note by the payee or holder discharges' the maker, even as against a subsequent innocent indorsee for value v but it has been adjudged by this court that a material alteration of a note, before its delivery to the payee, by one of two joint makers, without the eónsent of the other, makes it void as to him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any alteration which changes * * * (3) the time * * * of payment * * * is a material alteration.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.