Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Mo. 406

Owings v. Arnot

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1863

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1863-03-15

Louis Circuit Court. This suit was brought to the September term, 1859, of the St. Louis Circuit Court, on a promissory note against Lorenzo P. Sanger, Jesse Arnot,… Held: such alteration did not vacate the bill. (Brutt v. Picard, Ey. & M. 37.) Where the change in the instrument is merely the perfecting of an imperfection it is not such an alteration as avoids the instrument. (Atwood v. Griffin, 2 Car. & P. 369-370 ; Chit, on Bills, t. p. 194.) A bill was dated 1st August.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1897

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bates, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2It cannot be truly said that the alteration of the note upon which this suit is brought is immaterial. The note purports to be payable at a certain time after the date thereof, and a reference to the date is necessary to ascertain *409■when the note did become due. As the date was altered, the note, at the time it was endorsed by the defendants, was payable in the future, and the defendants were chargeable with the responsibilities of endorsers of a negotiable note; whereas, as the note originally stood before the alteration, it was already past due, and they were chargeable with the responsibilities of assignors of a debt to themselves.

¶3Without giving any opinion as to alterations whose materiality is not so apparent, it is sufficient in this case, in which the materiality clearly appears, to say that the endorsers are thereby discharged from liability.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.
/33/mo/406 · .json · Public domain