Bland v. O'Hagan

• Decision Date: 30 June 1870
• Citation: 64 N.C. 471
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: THEOPHILUS BLAND v. C. J. O'HAGAN.

64 N.C. 471

THEOPHILUS BLAND

v.C. J. O'HAGAN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1870.

*1 A bond had been executed by the defendant, leaving the name of the obligee blank; the bond was afterwards executed by others, and then the blank was filled with the name of the plaintiff, and the date was altered; suit having been brought upon the bond, on the trial the plaintiff offered to show, “that the signers of the paper authorized him to fill the blank and make the alteration of date, or assented to what he had done:” Held, that, as parties who appeal from rulings below in regard to the evidence, must set forth in distinct terms the evidence rejected, so that this Court may pass upon its admissibility, and, as the proposition above did not show the sort of evidence tendered, there appeared to be no error in its exclusion.

( Davenport v, Sleight, 2 D. & B. 381; Whitesides v. Twitty, 8 Ire. 431; and Marsh v. Brooks, 11 Ire. 409, approved.)

DEBT, tried before Jones, J., at Spring Term 1870 of PITT Court.

The plaintiff declared upon a bond for money, payable to himself. It appeared that the name of the obligee had been inserted by one Haddock, to whom the defendant had handed it for other signatures, and for registration, after the defendant had executed it, having been in blank at that time, and that the date was also altered after that time. The plaintiff offered to show by Haddock that the signers of the paper authorized him to fill the blank, and make the alteration of date. or assented to what had been done. His Honor excluded the evidence, and the plaintiff excepted.

Verdict for the defendant; Judgment accordingly; Appeal by the plaintiff.

Battle & Sons, for the appellant .

The evidence offered would have shown that which was tantamount to a re-delivery; Hudson v. Revett, 5 Bing. 354 (15 E. C. L.); Davenport v. Sleight 2 D. & B., at p. 384.

Hilliard, contra .

DICK, J.

The instrument sued on was not the deed of the defendant when it was handed to Haddock, as there was a blank as to the name of the obligee: Marsh v. Brooks, 11 Ire. 409.

Haddock could not perfect the instrument by filling the blank with the name of an obligee, unless he did so in the presence of the defendants, and with their express assent; or by a written authority under their hands and seals. After the blank was filled, and the alteration made in the date, if the instrument had been presented to the defendants, and they had ratified the act of their agent,...