NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-CARELESSNESS IN MAKING CHECKS

Authors

Abstract

In a recent case the supreme court of Texas held that the drawer of a check could recover from the drawee bank money paid on a check which had been fraudulently altered in amount by the payee even though the drawer was negligent in drawing the check in such a manner as to facilitate the fraudulent alteration. Glasscock v. First National Bank of San Angelo (Nov. 26, 1924) 266 S. W. 393. The court takes the view, though the decision is not based on it, that sec. 124 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides that: "Where a negotiable instrument is altered without the assent of all the parties liable thereon, it is avoided, except as against a party who has himself made, authorized, or assented to the alteration, and subsequent holders. But where an instrument has been materially altered and is in the bands of a holder in due course, not a party to the alteration, he may enforce payment thereof according to its original tenor," adopts a view not in keeping with the doctrine of the well known case of Young v. Grote, infra. The result reached calls forth discussion in view of the fact that out of five courts that have passed on the question involved three have taken the view that it is not covered by the quoted statutory language.

Recommended Citation

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-CARELESSNESS IN MAKING CHECKS, 23 Mich. L. Rev. 775 (1925).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol23/iss7/5