Conger v. Crabtree

• Decision Date: 25 May 1893
• Citation: 88 Iowa 536,55 N.W. 335
• Parties: CONGER v. CRABTREE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

88 Iowa 536

55 N.W. 335

CONGER

v.CRABTREE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 25, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; C. P. Holmes, Judge.

Action to recover an amount alleged to be due on a promissory note. After the evidence for defendant had been introduced the court sustained a motion of plaintiff to direct a verdict in his favor, a verdict was returned as directed for the amount of the note, and judgment was rendered thereon in favor of plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Phillips & Phillips, for appellant.

ROBINSON, C. J.

The note in suit as it appeared on the trial is in words and figures as follows: “100.00. Des Moines, Iowa, Sept. 3, 1889. Six months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to S. E. McCreary, M. D., or order, one hundred (100) dollars, at Des Moines, Iowa, with interest at ten per cent. per annum, payable annually, and interest in arrears shall draw ten per cent. interest till paid; and in case of nonpayment of interest when due the whole sum of principal and interest to become due and collectible, at the holder's option. And, in any action that may be brought for any sum under the provisions of this note by the holder hereof, he shall be entitled to recover of the maker hereof a reasonable sum as attorney's fee, to be taxed by the court. Geo. W. Crabtree.” It bore indorsements as follows: “Pay to W. W. Whitmore or order, without recourse. S. E. McCreary, M. D.” “Pay to C. M. Conger, or order, without recourse. J. W. Whitmore.”The plaintiff introduced the note in evidence, and rested. The defendant then introduced evidence which must be regarded, for the purposes of this appeal, as showing that when the note was made and delivered it did not provide for the payment of interest, but contained two blanks, one of which was in the clause in regard to the payment of interest on the principal, and the other in the clause which refers to the payment of interest on interest in arrears; that it was agreed between defendant and the payee of the note that it should not bear interest, and that the blanks for the rate of interest were filled without the knowledge or consent of the maker, after the note was delivered.

It has been held in some cases that the holder of a note has an implied power to fill blanks which were not filled when it was delivered. But whether a power to fill such blanks as those in controversy may exist by implication, in any event, we need not determine. In this case, it is shown, clearly, that it was withheld. The filling of the blanks was unauthorized, and was designed to affect the liability of the maker of the note, by increasing the amount for which he was liable. The alteration was therefore material, and a forgery, and rendered the note void, as betweeen the maker and the party who made the alteration. Code, § 3917; Bank v. Hall, (Iowa,) 50 N. W. Rep. 944;Smith v. Eals, 81 Iowa, 235, 46 N. W. Rep. 1110;Adair v. Egland, 58 Iowa, 314, 12 N. W. Rep. 277; Tied. Com. Paper, §§ 391, 394; McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34;Bank v. Burns, 129 Mass. 596. Such an alteration may be shown as against an innocent purchaser for value, before maturity. Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166, 16 N. W. Rep. 64;Bank v. Clark, 51 Iowa, 265, 1 N. W. Rep. 491. It is possible that the maker of an altered note may be...