12. Certainty of drawee.—The drawee of a bill of exchange must be clearly indicated. An instrument regular in form, except that it is not addressed to any drawee, is not a bill of exchange. As in the case of the payee, however, the drawee need not be named, but may be described with such certainty that the hill can he presented to the person intended. Thus, "To our agent in London" is sufficient, but "To London, England," is not. Where in a bill the drawer and drawee are the same person, or where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may treat the instru ment, at his option, either as a bill of exchange or as a promissory note.
13. Blanks.—The general rule is that, prima facie, a person in possession of an instrument which in some particular is incomplete, has authority to complete it by fillidg the blanks. We have already seen that the legal holder of an instrument from which the payee's name has been omitted may insert a payee. Sim ilarly, where a bill expressed to be payable at a fixed date is issued undated, or where the acceptance of a bill payable at sight, or at a fixed period after sight, is undated, any holder may insert the true date of issue or acceptance. But if the holder, in good faith, in serts a wrong date, or in any case if a wrong date is inserted, a subsequent holder in due course is not He is entitled to take the bill as he finds it. Or where a simple signature on a blank paper is delivered by the signer in order that it may be converted into a bill, it operates as a prima facie au thority to fill it up as a complete bill for any amount, using the signature for that of the drawer or acceptor, or an indorser.
But where a signature was obtained ostensibly for a receipt, and a note was written over it, the signer was not In that case the signature was not delivered in order that it should be converted into a bill. But where a note was signed in blank, and was sent with instructions to be filled up for one hundred and fifteen dollars, and it was filled up for four hun dred and sixty-one dollars, the maker was held liable for the full amount to a holder in due course. On the other hand, where a blank acceptance was stolen from the signer's desk and filled out, he was not held liable to a holder in due course—he had not delivered the acceptance or in any way lent his signature or au thority. And so, also, where a bill is wanting in a material particular, the person in possession of it has a prima facie authority to fill up the omission in any way he thinks fit. So where the maker of a note de livered it with the amount in blank, and it was fraud ulently filled out for eight hundred and fifty-five dol lars, he was held liable to an innocent indorsee. And
where a bill is drawn payable to or order, any holder for value may write his own name in the blank and sue on the bill. Tho an alteration is not a filling-up, it has been held that where a per son indorsed as payee a note for five hundred dollars. on which there was a blank space to the left of the word "five," which the maker fraudulently filled out with the word "twenty," the indorser was liable for two thousand five hundred dollars to an innocent in dorsee. The reason for this decision will now appear.
14. Alteration of bill.—The general rule is that where a bill or acceptance or a note is materially altered, without the assent of all parties liable thereon, it is voided, except as against a party who has him self made, authorized or assented to the alteration, and subsequent indorsers. This rule makes clear the reason for the holding just above mentioned. A sub sequent indorser is in the position of having lent his name and credit to the instrument. With these ex ceptions, the bill or note is void if materially altered, provided, however, that where there has been a ma terial alteration which is not apparent, a holder in due course may avail himself of the instrument as if it had not been altered, and may enforce payment of it ac cording to its original tenor.
The first part of our general rule makes a bill void if materially altered, with the exceptions mentioned. This was considered to be a hardship, and so the pro viso was added to protect holders in due course who may sue upon the bill according to its original tenor. That is, if A makes a note for five hundred dollars and B fraudulently raises the amount to two thou sand five hundred dollars and negotiates it to C who is a holder in due course, C can sue A for the five hundred dollars according to the original tenor of the note.
Two notes were given for patent rights, and the maker indorsed on them the words "the within notes not to be sold." The payee cut from one note the portion containing these words, but without defacing it. On the other he erased the word "not." The plaintiff noticed the erasure when buying the notes, and gave much less than their value for them. It was held that he was not an innocent holder, and the notes were void.' A genuine check for six dollars was altered to one thousand dollars so skilfully as to escape detection, and deposited in another bank by the pretended payee. twenty-five dollars being paid him at the time, and eight hundred dollars more after collection from the drawee bank. At the end of the month the forgery was discovered. It was held that the drawee was titled to recover from the collecting bank.2