Material alteration in a promissory note, including later insertion of the date, can render the instrument void and defeat recovery.

A promissory note showing a later insertion of the date in different ink was treated as a material alteration under negotiable instruments law. Because the party relying on the instrument failed to explain the alteration or show consent or common intention, the note was held void and unenforceable. The court further held that, where the claim was founded solely on that promissory note and the alleged loan was contemporaneous with it, no alternative basis for recovery could be sustained on the pleadings and proof. The decree was therefore reversed and the suit claim failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the promissory note was vitiated by a material alteration on account of a later insertion of the date, and if so, whether it became void and unenforceable. (ii) Whether the plaintiff could still recover the amount on an alternative basis after the promissory note was held void.

Issue (i): Whether the promissory note was vitiated by a material alteration on account of a later insertion of the date, and if so, whether it became void and unenforceable.

Analysis: The date appearing on the promissory note was found to be in a different ink from the body of the instrument, indicating a subsequent insertion. A change or insertion of date is a material alteration within the meaning of the governing law on negotiable instruments. Where the instrument appears altered, the party relying on it must explain the alteration and establish that it was made with consent or in furtherance of the common intention of the parties. The plaintiff offered no satisfactory explanation for the later insertion.

Conclusion: The promissory note was held to have been materially altered and therefore void and unenforceable.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff could still recover the amount on an alternative basis after the promissory note was held void.

Analysis: The claim for recovery was founded solely on the promissory note, and the loan payment was treated as contemporaneous with the instrument. Once the instrument was held void for material alteration, the alternative route of recovery could not be invoked on the facts pleaded and proved in the case.

Conclusion: The alternative claim for recovery was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court's decree was reversed and the suit claim failed in entirety, leaving the appellant successful in the second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A negotiable instrument that shows a material alteration, including a later insertion of the date, is void against a party not consenting to the alteration, and the party producing such an instrument bears the burden of explaining it.

---