119 N.Y.S. 290 | N.Y. App. Term. | 1909
The defendant Morris Herzenstein made the following note:
“1000. Mew Yobk. ........., 190
“..............after date..............promise to pay to the order of...........................One thousand dollars at 108 Grand Street, Mew York.
“ Value received. M. Hebzeesteik.”
The entire note was in print, except the words “ One thousand dollars ” and “ 108 Grand Street, Mew York,” and the
“January 15, 1908, after date I promise to pay to the order of B. Hsefof One thousand dollars at 108 Grand Street, New York. “ Value received. M. Herzensteiw.”
On January 15, 1908, the note thus filled in was protested; and plaintiff sued the maker and endorser on the said note and recovered judgment. The endorser appeals. The Negotiable Instruments Law (§ 33) provides that “where the instrument is wanting in any material particular, the person in possession thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein.” See also National Exchange Bank v. Lester, 194 N. Y. 461, 471. In the latter case the court said: “ Where a party to commercial paper intrusts it to another, with a blank therein designed to be filled up with the amount, such party is liable to a bona fide holder of the instrument for the amount filled in, even though it be larger than was stipulated with the person to whom immediate delivery was made. * * * So, also, a note executed with a blank therein for a statement of the place of payment is not avoided in the hands of a bona fide holder for value by the insertion in the blank of a place different from that agreed upon by the original parties.” Section 205 of the Negotiable Instruments Law reads thus: “ Where a negotiable instrument is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable thereon, it is avoided, except as against a party •who has himself made, authorized or assented to the alteration,
Seabury and Lehman, JJ., concur.
Judgment modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal.