376, 97 Am. Dec. 105. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 18-29.

13 O. N. Bull Remedy Co. v. Clark, 109 Minn. 396, 124 N. W. 20, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 519, 18 Ann. Cas. 413. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 18-29.

14 Davidson v. Cooper, 11 Mees. & W. 778, 13 Mees. & W. 343; Rawson v. Davidson. 49 Mich. 607, 14 N. W. 565. Under some circumstances and in some jurisdictions, the seal may make no difference. Truett v. Wainwright, 4 Gilman (I11.) 411; White v. Fox, 29 Conn. 570. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 8; Cent. Dig. § 44.

15 WOOD v. STEELE, 6 Wall. 80, 18 L. Ed. 725, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 407; Vance v. Lowther, 1 Exch. Div. 176; Walton v. Hastings, 4 Camp. 223; Outhwaite v. Luntley, Id. 179; Hamilton v. Wood, 70 Ind. .306; Britton v. Dierker, 46 Mo. 591, 2 Am. Rep. 553; Crawford v. Bank, 100 N. Y. 50, 2 N. E. 881, 53 Am. Rep. 152; Miller v. Gilleland, 19 Pa. 119. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 6; Cent. Dig. §§ 80-83.

16 Lee v. Murdock, 4 Pat. App. 261; Alderson v. Langdale, 3 Barn. & Adol. 660; Lewis v. Kramer, 3 Md. 265; Benedict v. Miner, 58 I11. 19; Lisle v. Rogers, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 528; Seebold v. Tatlie, 76 Minn. 131, 78 N. W. 967. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 6; Cent. Dig. §§ 30-33.

17 Woodworth v. Bank, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 391, 10 Am. Dec. 239; Whitesides v. Bank, 10 Bush (Ky.) 501, 19 Am. Rep. 74; Charlton v. Reed, 61 Iowa, 166, 16 N. W. 64, 47 Am. Rep. 808; Townsend v. Wagon Co., 10 Neb. 615, 7 N. W. 274, 35 Am. Rep. 493; White v. Hass, 32 Ala. 430, 70 Am. Dec. 549. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 6; Cent. Dig. §§ 30-33.

18 Goodman v. Eastman, 4 N. H. 455; Bank of Commerce v. Bank, 3 N. Y. 230. Or by altering currency in which note is payable. Darwin v. Rippey, 63 N. C. 318; Martendale v. Follett, 1 N. H. 95; Schwalm v. Mclntyre, 17 Wis. 232. See "Alteration of Instruments" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 16, 11.

19Warrington v. Early, 2 El. & Bl. 763; McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34, 15 Am. Rep. 372; Weyerhauser v. Dun, 100 N. Y. 150, 2 N. E. 274; Benedict v. Miner, 58 I11. 19; Ivory v. Michael, 33 Mo. 398; Lee v. Starbird, 55 Me. .491; Woodworth v. Anderson, 63 Iowa, 503, 19 N. W. 296; Kilkelly v. Martin, 34 Wis. 525; Neff v. Horner, 63 Pa. 327, 3 Am. Rep. 555; Davis v. Henry, 13 Neb. 497, 14 N. W. 523; Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427, 7 Am. Rep. 661; Coburn v. Webb, 56 Ind. 96, 26 Am. Rep. 15; Fay v. Smith, 1 Allen (Mass.) 477, 79 Am. Dec. 752. Sec "Alteration of Instruments" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 16, 17.

20 Bank of Limestone v. Penick, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 25; Pulliam v. Withonly does what the law would do - that is, only expresses what the law implies - is not a material alteration, and therefore would not avoid an instrument." 21 It is possible for the character of an instrument to be affected by an alteration which does not touch the contractual rights set forth in it. If, for instance, after the execution and delivery of an unattested bond, the obligee should fraudulently, and with a view to some improper advantage, procure a person who was not present at the execution of the instrument to sign his name thereto as an attesting witness, the obligor would be discharged.22 The alteration is material in that it might allow proof of the execution of the bond by proving such person's handwriting.23

"It is not to the point that the alteration be or be not to the prejudice of the party against whom the liability is sought to be enforced. The courts will not sit in judgment upon the question whether it be to the prejudice of the party aggrieved or not." 24

ers, 8 Dana (Ky.) 98, 33 Am. Dec. 479; Martin v. Thomas, 24 How. 315, If L. Ed. 689; Gardner v. Walsh, 32 Eng. Law & Eq. 162; Smith v. United States, 2 Wall. 219, 17 L. Ed. 788; Henry v. Coats, 17 Ind. 161; Wallace v Jewell, 21 Ohio St. 163, 8 Am. Rep. 48; Sullivan v. Rudisill, 63 Iowa, 158, 18 N. W. 856; Nicholson v. Combs, 90 Ind. 515, 46 Am. Rep. 229. It seems, however, according to the weight of authority in this country, that the addition of the signature of a surety or guarantor, not a joint maker (but see Brownell v. Winnie, 29 N. Y. 400, 86 Am. Dec. 341), does not discharge the maker of a note. Mersinan v. Werges, 112 U. S. 139, 5 Sup. Ct. 65, 28 L. Ed 641; Stone v. White, 8 Gray (Mass.) 589; McCaughey v. Smith, 27 N. Y. 39; Montgomery R. Co. v. Hurst, 9 Ala. 518; Wallace v. Jewell, 21 Ohio St. 172, 8 Am. Rep. 48; Miller v. Finley, 26 Mich. 249, 12 Am. Rep. 306. And it has been held that obtaining signature of second surety does not discharge first surety. Ward v. Hackett, 30 Minn. 150, 14 N. W. 578, 44 Am. Rep. 1S7; Keith v. Goodwin, 31 Vt. 268, 73 Am. Dec. 345; Sampson v. Barnard, 98 Mass. 359. Changing indorser into guarantor is material. Belden v. Hann, 61 Iowa, 42, 15 N. W. 591. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 16, 17.

212 Pars. Cont, 720; Aldous v. Cornwell, L. R. 3 Q. B. 573; Browu v. Pinkham, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 172; Rudesill v. Jefferson Co. Court, 85 I11. 446; Houghton v. Francis, 29 I11. 244; First Nat. Bank v. Wolff, 79 Cal. 69. 21 Pac. 551, 748; Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank, 13 N. Y. 309. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-4..

22 Adams v. Frye, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 103; Marshall v. Gougler, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 164. So of promissory note. Brackett v. Mountfort. 12 Mo. 72; Thornton v. Appleton, 29 Me. 298; Homer v. Wallis, 11 Mass; 310, 6 Am. Dec. 169; Smith v. Dunham, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 246. Contra in case of note. Fuller v. Green, 64 Wis. 159, 24 N. W. 907, 54 Am. Rep. 600 (distinguishing some of cases above cited). See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Keg-No.) 8; Cent. Dig. §§ 40-46.

28 Ante, p. 486.

24 Norton, Bills & N. (3d Ed.) 252; Chappell v. Spencer, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 584; Gardner v. Walsh, 5 El. & Bl. 83; Martin v. Thomas, 24 How. 315, 16 L

By Whom

It was at one time held in England that any material alteration by a stranger would discharge the contract, and even now it seems to be there held that such an alteration will operate as a discharge, if it was made for the benefit of a party to the contract, and while the instrument was in the party's possession, whether the party knew of or consented to the alteration or not.28 The doctrine is not recognized to any extent, if at all, in this country. On the contrary, it is held that alteration by a stranger, without the knowledge or consent of the parties, is a mere spoliation, and does not discharge the contract.26