Facts of the case
- D accepted a bill of exchange originally drawn in London.
- An endorsee, in collusion with the drawer, altered the place of drawing on the bill from London to America.
- The alteration was made without the knowledge or consent of D, the acceptor.
Issues in the case
- Whether the change in the place of drawing constitutes a material alteration.
- Whether D remains liable on a bill that has been altered without his consent.
Principles associated with the case
- A material alteration is any change to a negotiable instrument that affects the rights or obligations of the parties involved.
- Changing the place of drawing is considered a material alteration as it may change the legal framework and jurisdiction applicable.
- Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a party is discharged from liability if a material alteration is made without their consent.
- Even if the alteration is made by an endorsee and the drawer together, it invalidates the instrument against parties who did not consent to it.
Judgement
- D is not liable on the bill.
- The alteration of the place of drawing from London to America, without D’s consent, amounts to a material alteration.
- Therefore, D is discharged from liability, and the bill is unenforceable against him.