Clark v. Eckstein

Decided July 1, 1854

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1854-07-01

This was an action of assumpsit by Charles H. Eckstein and William W. Siegfried, copartners, &c., v. James Clark, on a promissory note of which John Gr. Michener was drawer,' and which was endorsed by James Clark. The note purported to be dated January 22, 1851, and was at four mouths, for $556. The pleas were non assumpsit and payment.

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1905

6 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Knox, J.

¶2Where a promissory note clearly shows upon its face that it has been altered in some material part, such as its date, it is incumbent upon the party producing it to account for the alteration ; and if no explanatory evidence is given, it would be error in the Court to refer it to the jury as matter . of fact to determine whether the alteration preceded delivery or otherwise. The onus in such case, is upon the party alleging the legality of the instrument.

¶3 *510But the preliminary question whether there has b.een an alteration, if doubtful, is for the jury. In the present ease, the last figure in the date of the note upon which the suit was brought is blottéd, and there appears at its side, an erasure, but whether it was the date or the blot that was attempted to be removed was properly left to the jury as a question of fact.

¶4Judgment affirmed.