{
  "id": 8690141,
  "name": "John W. Pullen v. John Shaw adm'r. of W. S. Roberts",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pullen v. Shaw",
  "decision_date": "1831-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "238",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 238"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 238"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Dal. 674",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Dal.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 331,
    "char_count": 4652,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.34,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2924678943100599e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6201541093708552
    },
    "sha256": "185b12ea27ddf896bc7d1667619bf4145279a024f18617056a9affacfb85572c",
    "simhash": "1:62daf4004c4192b6",
    "word_count": 827
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John W. Pullen v John Shaw adm\u2019r. of W. S. Roberts."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "' Henderson, Chief-Justice.\nErasure avoids a deed wjien ma([e \u00a1jy t\u00edte party claiming a benefit under it, even if it he in an immaterial -part; if made by a stranger, in \u00e1 material part, it also avoids the deed ; if hj accident, it does not. Formerly, the court judged of an erasure by inspection \u2014 latterly, the jury do. In judging by inspection, the court governed itself as juries do now, by probabilities in the absence of positive proof. If the alteration on the erased part was in the handwriting of the obligee or a stranger, and beneficial to the obligee, the court adjudged it an erasure, that is, an alteration made after the execution, and avoided the deed. If prejudicial to the obligee, the court adjudged it no erasure, that is, made before execution, and did not avoid -the deed. If in'the handwriting of the obligor either way, they adjudged it no erasure, that the alteration was made before execution, and did not avoid the deed. Juries are now governed by the same rules. In the case before us, the date of the bond is altered, and it is made \u25a0payable in 1821, instead of 1820, as it is said, is evident from the erasure not being complete, as appears from an inspection of the deed, and the alteration is in the handwriting of the obligee, and .prejudicial to the obligee ; for he loses one year\u2019s interest. It is payable from the date, or from a fixed period from the date. One of the .rules before mentioned, to wit, that if the alteration is prejudicial to the obligee, though in his handwriting, it .is no erasure, determines this case, as it is presumed that the alteration was made before execution. If the question was to be decided * by -the court, as formerly, wc should.pronounce it to be no erasure, in the absence of all evidence dehors the deed, the jury were properly instructed to pronounce it so. The plaintiff has failed in his evidence to prove, if that was his object in putting it \u201e on l.he record, that the alteration was beneficial to the obi.gee, by showing that he thereby avoided the effect of lvis admissions as to the state of the account against the defendant, by changing the date from 1820 to 1821.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment astirmeb-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "' Henderson, Chief-Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sea well and Gaston, for the defendant,",
      "Badger and W. H. Maywood, contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John W. Pullen v John Shaw adm\u2019r. of W. S. Roberts.\nAil alteration in a deed, which, is prejudicial to the obligee, as where the date was altered so as to deprive him of one year\u2019s interest, is presumed to have been made before the execution.\nDebt upon the following bond of the defendant\u2019s in-testate : \u201c One day after date, I promise to pay J, W. P. the just sum of nine hundred and eighty seven dol-il lavs fifty seven cents, for value received. Witness my i! hand and seal, this 11th November, 1821.\u201d\nPlea \u2014 non est factum, upon which the cause was tried \u2022before Swaist, Judge, at Wake, on the last circuit.\nThe defendant contended,\n1st. That the note was a forgery.\n2d. That the obligor and obligee had dealings in the bank, and that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate had signed the paper in blank with the view of being used, upon applying for a discount, and that the plaintiff had fraudulently filled up the blank signature.\n3d. That the bond had been altered, having been originally, 11th November, 1820, instead of 1821.\nUpon those points many witnesses were examined, and the examinations certified with the record, it was manifest upon inspection that the date had been altered. The body of the note and the erasure was in the plaintiff\u2019s handwriting, and the defendant attempted to prote that the alteration benefited the plaintiff by rendering an admission of his, concerning the accounts between him, and the intestate, consistent with the date to which it was altered.\nThe counsel for the deiendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that as the bond on its face appeared to be altered, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to shew its fairness. But his Honor, leaving the two first grounds of defence to the jury upon the facts, charged them that if the plaintiff had, after the execution of the bond altered the date, without the knowledge and consent of the ob-ligor, he could not recover. \u00c1 verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.- -\u2022 \u25a0\nSea well and Gaston, for the defendant,\nargued that an erasure or alteration in a deed, in the absence of proof; was presumed to have been made before execution. (10 Coke, 92 b note. Bac. M. Evidence F. Henman v. Dickinson. 15 Eng. C. L. 407).\nBadger and W. H. Maywood, contra,\ncited 12 Vin. Jib. Evidence 2 a 2 pi. 5. p. 50. Flower v. Castle, (Keble 121). Morris v. Vanderen,' (1 Dal. 674). Cruise Digest Deed, c. 26, s. 40. Shep. Touch. 6$. Chitty on Bill's 105, 106. 107. Bane\u2019s Al). Deed."
  },
  "file_name": "0238-01",
  "first_page_order": 244,
  "last_page_order": 246
}