13 Wend. 587 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1835
By the Court,
From the testimony of the witness to the bond, and who made the alleged alteration in it, the inference is very strong that the words inserted and interlined by him did not change the legal effect or character of the instrument. He thinks the words were may, or can, or assign. The instrument is in the hands of the defendant, who refused to exhibit it to the witness ; and as he did not produce it on the trial, the presumption against the materiality of the alteration is very much strengthened. But admitting it to have been material, the witness by whom it was made had competent authority for that purpose. The plaintiff was to give security for the payment of the rent, to be ap
It is a clear case of liquidated damages, if it is in the power of parties to liquidate them. 5 Cowen, 144. 7 id. 307.
Judgment for plaintiff.