University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Abstract
Defendant A made and delivered the note in question in 1921, payable in two years. In 1931 after the death of the payee, the note was duly assigned to plaintiff. When plaintiff received the note, the signature of defendant B appeared below that of A. The court found that B\u27s signature had been added by someone unknown claiming a benefit under the note after delivery and for the purpose of giving a greater security to the note and that neither defendant authorized or had any knowledge of the addition of B\u27s name. The plaintiff sued both defendants as co-makers of the note. Held, that the plaintiff by her pleading had elected to treat the forged signature as that of a genuine maker and that the addition of a maker is a material alteration within the meaning of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act so that it is avoided by the maker as to one not a holder in due course, Stacey v. Fritzler, (Ore. 1938) 84 P. (2d) 97, 499
