Kircher v. Dunnington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is contended that the note shows on its face that it has been materially altered in that the second ‘1’ in the figure 11 was changed to a 4 by the use of a different pen and ink from that used in other parts of the note. The rule has been stated in Meffert v. Lawson, 289 Mo. 337 , loc. cit. 361, 233 S. W. 31, 38 , as follows: ‘The ancient rule of evidence, as stated and discussed by Mr. Greenleaf (1 Gr. Ev., sec. 564), was that alterations and erasures of written instruments were presumed to have been made at or prior to the time of their execution. The trend 'of authority is still in favor of the rule as thus declared. However, where an alteration or erasure appears suspicious on its face — for example, where a different ink has been employed at the point of erasure from that elsewhere used in the instrument — it demands explanation. In the presence of this, or equally cogent circumstances of a suspicious nature, the law presumes nothing, and the question as to the time when the person by whom, or the interest for which, the alteration was made are matters of fact to be found by the jury upon proof adduced by the party offering the instrument in evidence.' (Italics ours.) ‘‘In Kircher v. Dunnington, 325 Mo. 355 , loc. cit. 363, 29 S. W. (2d) 138 , it is held that when the ink in which an interlineation or addition is written is different from that used in the body of the instrument, and such addition is in a different handwriting from that of the body of the instrument, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miles City Bank v. Askin