Smith v. Ferry

Decided October 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1878-10-15

<p>Presumptions as to date of Indorsements. The general rule is that an indorsement of payment on a promissory note is presumed to have been made at the time the indorsement bears date; but this presumption ceases if there be any thing in the indorsement indicative of alteration.</p>

Relies on Horton v. Bayne · Matthews v. Coalter · Patterson v. Fagan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1921

7 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 →

Sherwood, C. J.

¶1In general indorsements made upon promissory notes are presumed to have been made at the time such indorsements bear date. Horton v. Bayne, 52 Mo. 531. If, however, there be any thing in the indorsement indicative of alteration, the usual presumption ceases, and it then devolves upon the holder of the paper to explain that which is apparently suspicious. Mathews v. Coalter, *1439 Mo. 696; Patterson v. Fagan, 38 Mo. 70: 1 Greenl. Ev., § 564 and cases cited. Eor this reason no error occurred in the refusal of plaintiff’s first declaration of law. The case of Carter, Adm. of English, v. Carter, 44 Mo. 195, by no means militates against the herein expressed views, and the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

¶2Arrirmed.