142 Mass. 12 | Mass. | 1886
The evidence was that Holway attested the note as a witness before it was delivered to the plaintiff, and that he did this, without the knowledge of either the plaintiff or defendant, “as a matter of course, because the defendant signed by mark; ” and the argument is that this attestation materially enlarged the defendant’s liability, because an action can be brought upon an attested note at any time within twenty years after the cause of action accrues, while, if the note is not attested, an action must be brought within six years. Pub. Sts. c. 197, §§ 1, 6, 7. If it be assumed that the effect of a witness attesting the signature of the maker of a note who signs by his mark is to bring the note within §§ 6 and 7 of this chapter of the Pub. Sts., that this is a material alteration, and that there is no such custom of witnessing such signatures that it can be considered that -the defendant must be held to have authorized the attestation, yet the attestation was made.before delivery, and was not made by the payee or by his procurement, and it was not an alteration of an existing contract. There is, indeed, no evidence that the attestation was made by Holway with any fraudulent intent, unless the fact that he made it is, under the
Exceptions overruled.
