J. M. CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. W. MCKAY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a contract dispute where the plaintiff offered evidence of a written agreement bearing a visibly erased word material to the parties' rights, the Florida Supreme Court held that the burden of proof shifts to the party offering the altered instrument to prove the alteration occurred before delivery or was authorized, and reversed the judgment because the trial court erred in refusing this instruction.
When a written contract offered into evidence shows a material alteration on its face, the burden shifts to the party offering the instrument to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the alteration was made before delivery or was authorized by the signatory. The trial court erred in refusing to give this instruction.
“When the contract was offered by the plaintiff and a material alteration of the character shown here appeared on its face, a prima facie case for the defendant under his plea was made, and the burden was then upon the plaintiff holder to show that the alteration was made before it was delivered, or if made after delivery that it was authorized by the party making the contract.”
Establishes the core holding that visible material alterations on the face of a contract shift the burden to the party offering it to prove authorization or pre-delivery alteration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKay sued Calhoun on a written contract. The contract, when offered as evidence by the plaintiff, showed that the word 'net' had been erased and was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Material Alteration Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
McKay brought an action against Calhoun on a written contract. Among the pleas was one that the word “net” was erased from the instrument after it was written, thereby materially altering the contract. Issue was joined on the plea. Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered and on writ of error the defendant below urges, among other assignments, that the-court erred in refusing to give the following instruction : “Where a party offers in evidence a contract which appears on its face to have been altered, the burden of proof is on the party offering such altered contract, to prove by a preponderance of evidence that such contract was altered before it left the hands of the party who signed it.”
When the contract was offered in evidence by the plaintiff it appeared on the fact of the paper that the word “net” had been erased so as to be barely visible, and that the absence of the word is material to the rights of the parties. When the contract was offered by the plaintiff and a material alteration of the character shown here appeared on its face, a prima facie case for the defendant under his plea was made, and the burden was then upon the plaintiff holder to. show that the alteration was made before it was delivered, or if made after delivery that it was authorized by the party making the contract. Harris v. Bank of Jacksonville, 22 Fla. 501, 1 South. Rep. 110, 1 Am. St. Rep. 201. See also Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla. 211, 15 South. Rep. 77; Cross v. Abbey, 55 Fla. 311, 15 South. Rep. 820.
When a party receives a written instrument under which he claims rights, and the instrument on its face shows a material alteration, of the character disclosed in this case, he takes it cum onere, and if the alteration is assailed, the burden is on him to show it was authorized.
In this case the evidence as to the alteration is the conflicting testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant, the person who signed and the person who claims under the contract. Under these circumstances and in view of the general charge that “the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show that such alteration was made after the execution of the instrument sued upon, by a preponderance of the testimony,” it was error to refuse to give the ¡requested instruction; and it cannot be said on this record that the error did not materially affect substantial rights of the defendant. It is not necessary to discuss other assignments of error. .The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. .Taylor, J., absent on account of illness concurred in the opinion as prepared.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bean v. Suburban Holding Co., 121 Fla. 868 (Fla. 1935)…hancellor below, and there is substantial evidence supporting the Chancellor’s findings. Harris v. Bank of Jacksonville, 22 Fla. 501, 1 Sou. 140; Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla. 224, 15 Sou. 770; Cross v. Aby, 55 Fla. 311, 45 Sou. 820; Calhoun v. McKay, 64 Fla. 226, 60 Sou. 182. This Court has held, in many cases, that the Chancellor’s findings on the facts will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. The only other question raised by the assignments of error herein and argued by appellant is whether or no…
Authorities Cited
- Cross v. Nannie L. Aby and R. H. Aby, 55 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1908)
- Harris v. The Bank of Jacksonville & Maxfield & Co., 22 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1886)