VI. Presumptions, Inferences, Etc. Sec. 3107. Questions Of Law And Fact
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.
VI. Presumptions, Inferences, Etc. Sec. 3107. Questions Of Law And Fact
The existence of alteration, if apparent on the face of the instrument, seems to have been determined by the court at one time. Subsequently such questions were left to the jury.1 At modern law, whether an alleged alteration has been made or not,2 when it was made, if at all,3 by whom it was made,4 and whether the adversary party consented to such alteration or not,5 or ratified it thereafter,6 are all questions of fact and are to be determined by the jury if the facts are tried to the jury.
5 See Sec. 2043.
6 Lombardo v. Lombardini, 57 Wash. 362, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 515, 106 Pac
907.
1 Coke on Littleton, 225b; Sheppard's Touchstone of Common Assurances,
69.
2 United States. Wood v. Steele, 73 U. S. (6. Wall) 80, I3 L. ed. 725.
Arkansas, Jones v. Horatio Bank, 102 Ark. 302, 143 S. W. 1060; Arnold v. Wood, 127 Ark. 234, 191 S. W. 960.
Colorado. Brunton v. Ditto, 51 Colo. 178, 117 Pac. 156.
Illinois. Hayes v. Wagner, 220 111. 256, 77 N. E. 211.
Kentucky. Elbert v. McClelland, 71 Ky. (8 Bush.) 577.
Minnesota. O. N. Bull Remedy Co. v. Clark, 109 Minn. 396, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 519, 124 N. W. 20.
New Jersey. Jones v. Crowley, 57 N. J. L. 222, 30 Atl 871.
Oklahoma. Kapp v. Levyson, 58 Okla. 651. 160 Pac. 457.
Pennsylvania. Bowman v. Berkey. 259 Pa. St. 327, 103 Atl. 49.
West Virginia. Conner v. Flesh man, 4 W. Va. 603.
3 Alabama. Burnett Cigar Co. v. Art Wall-Paper Co., 164 Ala. 547, 51 So. 263.
Illinois. Hutchison v. Kelly, 276 111 438, 114 N. E. 1012.
Michigan. Wilson v. Hotchkiss, 81 Mich. 172, 45 N. W. 838.
Nebraska. Cass County Bank v. Morrison, 17 Neb. 341, 52 Am. Rep. 417, 22 N. W. 782.
Virginia. Consumers' Ice Co. v. Jennings, 100 Va. 719, 42 S. E. 879.
4 Hutchison v. Kelly, 276 111. 438, 114 N. E. 1012; Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 12 Am. St. Rep. 754, 4 L. R. A. 196, 42 N. W. 467; North v. Henne-berry, 44 Wis. 306.
5 Cochran v. Nebeker, 48 Ind. 459; Holyfield v. Harrington, 84 Kan. 760, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 131, 115 Pac. 546; Stahl v. Berger, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 170, 13 Am. Dec. 666; Goldsmith v. Stocker, 253 Pa. St. 127, 07 Atl 1079; North v. Henneberry, 44 Wis. 306.
6 American Trust & Savings Bank v. Perkins, 108 Miss. 834, 67 So. 481; Gray v. Williams, 91 Vt. 1ll, 99 Atl 935.
Whether an alteration is material or immaterial is a question of law. It is therefore error to leave such question to the jury, if the facts on which such question depends are conceded or are clearly established.7
Continue to:
My Books
