Berks County Trust Co. v. Lyte
| Decision Date | 03 July 1915 |
| Docket Number | 190 |
| Citation | 250 Pa. 543,95 A. 719 |
| Parties | Berks County Trust Co. v. Lyte, Administratrix, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 17, 1915
Appeal, No. 190, Jan. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Lancaster Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 59, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Berks County Trust Company v. Mary McJ. Lyte, Administratrix of E. O. Lyte, deceased. Reversed.
Assumpsit on promissory note. Before HASSLER, J.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict for plaintiff for $2,233 1-3 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were in admitting the note in evidence and in refusing binding instructions for the defendant.
Judgment reversed.
William H. Keller, with him John A. Coyle, for appellant.
H Edgar Sherts, for appellee.
Before BROWN, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, MOSCHZISKER and FRAZER, JJ.
This is an action of assumpsit brought by the holder against one of two makers of a joint and several negotiable promissory note. The note was made payable to the order of the makers and by them endorsed and delivered to the holder, the Berks County Trust Company, the plaintiff in this action. The copy of the note sued on and set out in the statement is as follows: The note is endorsed: "J. W. Lansinger, E. O. Lyte." The defendant, Lyte, pleaded non assumpsit, and filed an affidavit in which "he admits that he signed the note in suit," and sets up as a defense certain matters which the court, on the trial, held to be insufficient and declined to submit to the jury. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment having been entered thereon the defendant has taken this appeal.
The plaintiff offered in evidence on the trial of the cause the following note: Endorsed: The defendant objected to the offer for the reason that the note disclosed on its face a material alteration and did not agree with the note, and was not the note, in suit of which a copy was set out in the plaintiff's statement. The objection was sustained by the court until the plaintiff explained the alterations. This it attempted to do by showing that the alteration was in the same handwriting as the rest of the note, that Lansinger in sending the note to the plaintiff had accompanied it by a letter in which he stated that he had changed the note in suit because he did not have a Berks County Trust Company note, that the note in suit was a renewal of a former note, and that the defendant in his affidavit admitted that he had signed the note in suit. Following this testimony, the note was admitted in evidence. The learned court instructed the jury that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the alteration of the note was made before it was signed by the parties, or that it was done with their knowledge and consent, and that it was for the jury to determine whether, under the testimony, the alteration was made before Mr. Lyte signed the note, or made with his knowledge and consent.
We think the evidence was insufficient to meet the burden imposed on the plaintiff of showing that the alteration changing the place of payment of the note was made before Mr Lyte signed it or with his knowledge and consent, and that, therefore, the court should have declined to admit the note in evidence, and having admitted it, should, as requested, have directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The Act of May 16, 1901, Sec. 125, P.L. 194, provides: "Any alteration which changes . . . the time or place of payment . . . is a material alteration"; and Section 124 provides: "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, and subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miners Sav. Bank of Pittston v. Dougherty
...the first trial were that the only trouble and had the motion been made." The circumstances in the case of Berks County Trust Co. v. Lyte, 250 Pa. 543, 95 A. 719, are distinguishable from those shown here. In any event, the plaintiff has now offered to amend, to which offer we will give fur......
-
Colonial Finance Co. v. Hoover
...error to admit the note in evidence and let the jury pass upon that question of fact See, also, Berks County Trust Co. v. Lyte, Adm'r, 250 Pa. 543, 95 A. True, Jacob Fried, the holder of the note, testified in his depositions that he was the treasurer of the Colonial Finance Company, and th......
-
Mechanics' American Nat. Bank v. Helmbacher
...these sections is material alterations), but other jurisdictions have had identical sections under consideration. In Berks County Trust Co. v. Lyte, 250 Pa. 543, 95 Atl. 719, Lyte signed a note as accommodation maker for one Lansinger. The note was payable to the order of themselves. Both i......
-
Shenango Limestone Co. v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co.
...rates." It is thus clear that the allegata and probata do not agree, and the suit cannot be maintained. Berks Co. Trust Co. v. Lyte, 250 Pa. 543, 95 Atl. Moreover, there was neither averment nor proof as to whether the time limit, specified by the witness, had or had not expired before the ......