Facts of the Case
- B accepted a Bill of Exchange originally drawn in Paris.
- The bill was later altered by the Endorsee and the Drawer in collusion.
- The alteration changed the place of drawing from Paris to Rome.
- This alteration was made after B’s acceptance.
- The question arises whether B remains liable on the altered bill.
Issues in the Case
- Whether changing the place of drawing constitutes a material alteration.
- Whether B can be held liable on a bill that was altered without his consent.
- Does the acceptance bind B in light of the post-acceptance alteration?
Principles Associated with It
- Under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, any material alteration to a negotiable instrument renders it void unless it is made with the consent of all parties involved.
- Changing the place of drawing is considered a material alteration as it affects the legal obligations of the parties.
- If the alteration is made after acceptance without the consent of the acceptor, the instrument becomes void against the acceptor.
- Consent of the party liable is essential to uphold liability on a materially altered instrument.
Judgement
- B is not liable on the altered Bill of Exchange.
- The alteration from Paris to Rome is a material alteration.
- Since the alteration was made after B’s acceptance and without his consent, the bill becomes void as against him under Section 87.
- The collusion between the Drawer and the Endorsee makes them liable, but not B.
