Van Brunt v. Eoff

Decided September 16, 1861

New York Supreme Court · decided 1861-09-16

ACTION on a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the order of the plaintiffs. The note sued on was dated September 5, payable twelve months from date, at the Broadway Bank. The note, when made by the defendant, was dated September 13, and was altered by a person named Clinton, acting as the defendant’s agent, in the presence of the plaintiffs, but in ¿the absence of the defendant, to September 5. The plaintiffs were insurance brokers.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-09-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1891

3 state decisions

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Ingraham, J.

¶1The alteration of the date of the note, made by the agent of the maker under the supposition that he had authority to make such an alteraron,. *502did not render the note void. If there was no authority to make such an alteration, the note would still be a subsisting obligation, as it was before it was altered.

[New York General Term,September 16, 1861.

¶2The judge erred in holding the note to be void, where there was no evidence of a fraudulent intent.

¶3Hew trial ordered; costs to abide the event.

¶4Clerke, Ingraham and Leonard, Justices.]