Sec. 3074. As To Parties Who Do Not Assent Thereto
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 3074. As To Parties Who Do Not Assent Thereto
Alteration before final delivery is not binding on parties to the altered instrument who did not consent to such alteration, if the alteration affects their rights in any substantial way.1 If the date of a note is altered by one of the joint makers thereof before delivery, but after the other joint makers have signed, and without their assent, such alteration discharges the joint makers who did not assent,2 although such result is explained on the theory that such alteration prevents the existence of. a contract, instead of discharging an existing contract.3 If A is the maker of a note, B a payee, and X a party to the note for the accommodation of A, a change made before final delivery by A, by the consent of A and B, but without X's consent, will discharge X.4 Indorsers of a note given by a corporation may set up an alteration made by the president of the corporation after indorsement but before delivery.5
2 Miller v. Williams, 27 Colo. 34, 50 Pac. 740; Wilhite v. Mason, 102 Kan. 461, 170 Pac. 814; Wicker v. Jones, 150 N. Car 102, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 69, 74 S. E. 801.
3 Eadie v. Chambers, 172 Fed. 73, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 870 [reversed in Was-key v. Chambers, 224 U. S. 564, 56 L. ed. 885, on the theory that the deed, having but one witness and being altered after acknowledgment, was not entitled to registration], Abbott v. Abbott, 139 111. 488, 82 Am. St. Rep. 470, 59 N. E. 958; Huffman v. Hatcher, 178 Ky. 8, L. R. A. 1918B, 484, 198 S. W. 236.
4 Sloman v. Express Co., 134 Mich. 16, 95 N. W. 999.
5 Holland v. Hatch, 15 O. S. 464.
6 Temple v. Harrington, 00 Or. 293, 176 Pac. 430.
7 Powell v. Fowler, 85 Ark. 451, 102 Am. St. Rep. 41, 108 S. W. 827.
8 Powell v. Fowler, 85 Ark. 451, 102 Am. St. Rep. 41, 108 S. W. 827.
9 Wilhite v. Mason, 102 Kan. 461, 170 Pac 814.
1 Smith v. United States, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 219, 17 L. ed. 788; State v. McGonigle, 101 Mo. 353, 20 Am. St. Rep. 609, 8 L. R. A. 735n, 13 S. W. 758; Barton Savings Bank ft Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L. R, A. (N.S.) 346. 80 Atl. 630; Herahman v. Stafford, 58 W. Va. 459, 52 S. E. 533..
Continue to:
My Books
