82 Va. 680 | Va. | 1886
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from decrees of the circuit court of Loudoun county, rendered at the April and October terms, 1883. On the 9th day of January, 1872, John P. Elgin, deceased,'
The ground of objection to these receipts is, that they appear on their face to have been mutilated and defaced by erasures and additions of a fraudulent character. These receipts being before this court in the original, by order of this court, and being seen and inspected in the original, appear to have been much altered; these alterations are patent and obvious to the
The receipt marked Exhibit No. 1, filed with the answer, reads in the record thus:
“1872. December 4. Received of James M. Hall two hundred and seventy-one dollars, being cash payment on land. Jno. F. Elgin.”
As it originally was, it reads thus:
“1871. December 4. Received of James M. Hall two hundred and seventy-one dollars, being cash payment on land this day sold to him. Jno. F. Elgin.”
The figures and words in italics showing the alterations.
Exhibit No. 2 reads in the record thus:
“Received of James M. Hall one hundred and fifty dollars. Jan. 13, 1873. Jno. F. Elgin.”
The original shows plainly that the words “and fifty” were inserted in the receipt between the word “ hundred ” and the word “dollars,” the word “and” being written in a very different hand at the end of one line, and the word “fifty” at the beginning of the next line, extending the line in each case beyond the original length.
Exhibit No. 5 reads in the record thus:
“Jan. 1, 1874. Received of J. M. Hall fifty dollars, being part payment on land. Jno. F. Elgin.”
As it was originally written, it read thus: '
“1872. Jan. 1. Received of J. M. Hall fifty dollars, being part payment on land. Jno. F. Elgin.”
The date being changed from 1872 to 1874; and when this receipt No. 5 is placed just under, and in juxtaposition with No. 1, they plainly show that they have been cut apart after the last one was written, as the letters of the lower receipt are cut off on the upper paper, and the bottom of the J., in the signature, Jno. F. Elgin, is cut off the lower piece of paper.
As to No. 2, the added “and fifty” is an obvious and patent addition, which can profit nobody, unless explained by the party offering it in evidence. We have no occasion to go into any speculation, however, as to the cause or agent of these changes made in the interest of the defendant who offers in evidence these papers to prove the payment of money by him. The rule of law is that he must explain these things (which he has not attempted to do), or he must lose all benefit, take nothing, on account of them. “Every alteration on the face of a written instrument detracts from its credit, and renders it suspicious; and this suspicion the party claiming under it is ordinarily held bound to remove. Though the effect of the alteration of a legal instrument is generally discussed with reference to deeds, yet the principle is applicable to all other instruments. The early decisions were chiefly upon deeds, because almost all written engagements were anciently in that form; but they establish the general proposition that written instruments which are altered, in the legal sense of that term, are thereby made void.” 1 Greenleaf, 605, 606.
These receipts have been destroyed by the alterations in them, and are so discredited as to be worthless and void, and must be rejected altogether in making up the account in the case of the amount of the debt.
The circuit court having held them good and valid to prove the payments they are offered to show, the decrees of that court will be reversed and annulled, and the cause remanded to that court, that a new account of the debt may be taken and further proceedings had therein in order to a final decree.
Decrees reversed.