142 N.Y.S. 312 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1913
The plaintiffs sued upon a note made by the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that they are holders for value of the note by assignment from the original payee. The defendant, on the other hand, denies that the plaintiffs are holders for value, and claims that the original payee fraudulently altered the note by inserting the words “with interest” after execution. It is not disputed that the payee did insert these words after execution. If he inserted these words with fraudulent intent, it was a material alteration which vitiates the note (Columbia Distilling Co. v. Rech, 151 App. Div. 128; McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34), but “ Sometimes an alteration in a n.ote, seemingly
Judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.
Butte and Whitakeb, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.