Scotland Cnty. Nat'l Bank v. O'connel

• Decision Date: 26 October 1886
• Citation: 23 Mo.App. 165
• Parties: SCOTLAND COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, Respondent, v. DANIEL O'CONNEL ET AL., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

23 Mo.App. 165

SCOTLAND COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, Respondent,

v.DANIEL O'CONNEL ET AL., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Oct. 26, 1886.

APPEAL from the Scotland County Circuit Court, BEN. E. TURNER, Judge.

Affirmed.

SMOOT & PETTINGILL, for the appellants: The holder of perfected negotiable paper, which has been altered by raising the amount, can not recover. Greenfield Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 203; Knoxville Bank v. Clark, 51 Iowa, 264; Haskell v. Champion, 30 Mo. 136; Robinson v. Berryman, 22 Mo. App. 509.

MCKEE & JAYNE, for the respondent: He who enables another to commit a wrong, is liable for the consequences. Iron Mountain Bank v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 70; Shirts v. Overjohn, 60 Mo. 305; Trigg v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245; Ivory v. Campbell, 33 Mo. 98.

ROMBAUER, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff brought its action upon a promissory note, charged to have been executed by the defendants, jointly with one T. S. Smith. The defendants answered under oath, denying the execution of the note.

The evidence tended to prove the following facts: That T. S. Smith made a negotiable promissory note to the order of the Scotland County National Bank for one hundred dollars, and obtained the signatures of the defendants thereto as joint makers, and that thereafter and prior to the delivery of the note to the bank, he altered the note by adding after the words “ one hundred,” the words “ thirty-five.” Also, that the entire written part of the note is in the handwriting of Smith, who had left sufficient blank space after the words one hundred to insert the words thirty-five; that these last words were inserted in the same handwriting, with the same ink, and in a manner to avoid detection of the alteration; that there was nothing in his transaction with the bank to arouse suspicion of its agents, and that the bank purchased the note in good faith before maturity, for a full and valuable consideration.

These being the substantial facts, the court, upon the plaintiff's request, charged the jury as follows:

“Although the jury may believe, from the evidence, that the note was altered by adding the words thirty-five, after the defendants' signatures were attached to it (if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendants signed it), then in such case the jury will find for the plaintiff; if they shall believe, from the evidence, that J. W. Barnes, cashier of plaintiff, bought and received said note, and that at the time said note was so bought and received, there was no marks upon the face of said note such as would arouse suspicion upon the part of a careful man upon inspection thereof, and that said cashier bought and received same in good faith and believing it to be genuine.”

Under this instruction the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the note and interest.

We have no hesitation to say that this instruction is erroneous. As applicable to the facts of the case, it omits several important qualifications. If the law were as therein stated, parties to...