notes came into the hands of innocent holders for value. A maker signs a note by which the amount may be increased without guarding against | such an alteration. The note is written for " One Hundred Dollars." The blank space is filled in with the words " and fifty." There is nothing to raise a suspicion that it is not all right. The maker is liable for the face of the note to the bona fide holder for value. If the blank space had been scored with a or the alteration in any wise perceptible, the purchaser would have taken it at his own risk. The law declares it is the duty of the maker of the note to guard, not only him self, but the public, against frauds and altera tions, by refusing to sign negotiable paper made in such a form as to admit of fraud ulent practices upon them with ease and without ready detection. When the altera tion is apparent on the face of the paper, the holder either takes it at his risk to lose it all, or to be governed by the original unaltered note as to the amount to be recovered. There seem to be but few doors of escape from payment for negotiable paper in the hands of innocent holders for value. Before you send negotiable paper into the commer cial world, on the wings of the wind, that you do not want to pay, either don't sign the paper or sign and write across its face " nonnegotiable." Of course, mala fides on the part of the holder is open for proof at all times. However, we do not propose now | to enlarge upon the subject of bad faith, fraudulent blindness, circumstantial evidence of knowledge, and so forth; all or any of which may be sufficient excuse for the jury to relieve the maker from the payment of the note. Side by side with these almost innumer able cases preservative of commercial paper in the hands of bona fide holders for value, before maturity and without notice, there is a small class of cases distinctly separate from them, which may defeat the recovery
by innocent holders of genuine negotiable paper as virtual forgeries. The maker, to avoid liability, must prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he has been guilty of no laches or negligence in signing the negotiable in strument. He must show that it did not get into circulation by any fault of his. Here are three cases: — In the first, the alteration consisted in adding a single letter " y " to the word "eight " so as to make the note read " eighty" instead of " eight." The instrument was a printed blank with an open space for the insertion of the amount, the word "dollars" being printed at the end of the space. The word " eight " was filled in at the beginning of the space, and all the rest of the blank to the word " dollars " was filled with an elongated scroll. It happened that a very slight space, about an eighth of an inch, was left between the end of the word " eight" and the beginning of the scroll. In that di minutive spot the letter "y" was inserted in such a way as to appear quite natural, and in the handwriting of the person who filled up the rest of the note. A cipher was added to the figures. The court said that it would be monstrous and contrary to every legal principle to hold that the maker of a negotiable instru ment must so execute it as to prevent the possibility of alteration in any event. The maker, having used ordinary care and pre caution and not having been negligent, would be no more responsible upon such an altered instrument than he would upon a skilful forgery of his handwriting. The question of negligence is for the jury; and it generally finds, when given full oppor tunity, that the maker was not negligent. In a second case the farmer agreed to be an agent for a fence after repeated impor tunities. It was necessary, in order to become such, that he sign an agreement, which he read over and over. It was a half page of printed matter, and not in the nature of a note. The farmer produced his copy on the trial. When in the act of
