Sec. 3109. Presumption As To Whether Alteration Is Fraudulent
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. 3109. Presumption As To Whether Alteration Is Fraudulent
If the alteration is material, the question next presented is whether it is presumed to be fraudulent or not. A material alteration, made after execution, and not clearly beneficial to the obligor, is prima facie fraudulent.1 An alteration increasing the rights of the obligee and the liabilities of the obligor, as increasing the amount of a note,2 is prima facie fraudulent If, on the other hand, the alteration reduces the rights of the obligee or the liabilities of the obligor, as reducing the rate of interest,3 or erasing the name of a surety,4 it is prima facie not fraudulent. A change in the date of payment of a note has been held to be not fraudulent prima facie.5
13 Graham v. Middleby, 185 Mass. 349, 70 N. E. 416. (Where the letter "s" in ink was added to the typewritten word "contract.")
14 England. Johnson v. Marlborough, 2 Stark. 313.
Arkansas. Arnold v. Wood, 127 Ark. 234, 191 S. W. 960.
California. Miller v. Luco, 80 Cal. 257, 22 Pac. 195.
Connecticut. Baxter v. Camp, 71 Conn. 245, 71 Am. St. Rep. 169, 42 L. R. A. 514, 41 Atl. 803.
Illinois. Montag v. Linn, 23 III. 503; Landt v. McCullough, 206 111. 214, 69 N. E. 107; McAllister v. Avery, 17 III App. 568; Sisson v. Pearson, 44 III. App. 81.
Iowa. Kauffman v. Logan, - la. -, 174 N. W. 366.
Michigan. Samberg v. American Express Co., 136 Mich. 639, 99 N. W. 879.
Oregon. Hillsboro First National Bank v. Mack, 35 Or. 122, 57 Pac. 326.
Pennsylvania. Cornog v. Wilson, 231 Pa. St. 281, 80 Atl 174.
15 On this question there is said to be "a wilderness of authority and much conflict of opinion." Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 12 Am. St. Rep. 754, 4.L. R. A. 196, 42 N. W. 467.
16 Landt v. McCullough, 206 111. 214, 69 N. E. 107 [affirming, 103 III. App. 668]; Cole v. Hills, 44 N. H. 227; Consumers9 Ice Co. v. Jennings, 100 Va. 719, 42 S. E. 879.
17 For insurance assessments. Ram-bousek v. Mystic Toilers, 119 la. 263, 93 N. W. 277.
Receipt for payment for land. Bradley v. Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 245, 81 N. W. 394.
18 Consumers' Ice Co. v. Jennings, 100 Va. 719, 42 S. E. 879.
Continue to:
My Books
