The alteration, to effect a discharge, must be intentional. An alteration by accident or mistake, occurring under such circumstances as to negative the idea of intention, will not invalidate the document.27 Though there are some cases to the contrary, by the weight of authority, in so far as the instrument itself is concerned, it is immaterial whether the alteration was with fraudulent intent or not. Innocent but intentional alteration destroys its efficacy. An alteration, however, without fraudulent intent, will not prevent recovery on the original consideration for the instrument. Where a bill, note, or other security is given for a valuable consideration existing independently of the instrument, it is generally held that an alteration of the note or bill in a material part by the holder without authority of the maker prevents a recovery upon the instrument, whether the alteration was with or without fraudulent intent.28 If the alteration was made with

Ed. 689; Coburn v. Webb, 56 Ind. 96, 26 Am. Rep. 15. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-4.

25 Anson, Cont (4th Ed.) 327; Pigot's Case, 11 Rep. 27; Davidson v. Cooper, 11 Mees. & W. 778, 13 Mees. & W. 343. See "Alteration of Instruments" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Gent Dig. §§ 57-72.

26 Lewis v. Payn, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 71, 18 Am. Dec. 427; Martin v. Insurance Co., 101 N. Y. 498, 5 N. E. 338; United States v. Spalding, 2 Mason, 478, Fed. Cas. No. 16,365; Yeager v. Musgrave, 28 W. Va. 90; Drum v. Drum, 133 Mass. 566; Church v. Fowle, 142 Mass. 12, 6 N. E. 764; Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192; Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt 521; Neff v. Horner, 63 Pa. 327, 3 Am. Rep. 555; Wickes' Lessee v. Caulk, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 36; Condict v. Flower, 106 I11. 105; Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. Law, 227, 10 Am. Rep. 232; Piersol v. Grimes, 30 Ind. 129, 95 Am. Dec. 673; Langenberger v. Kroeger, 48 Cal. 147, 17 Am. Rep. 418; Moore v. Ivers, S3 Mo. 29; Andrews v. Calloway, 50 Ark. 358, 7 S. W. 449; Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 Ohio St. 530; White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Dakin, 86 Mich. 581, 49 N. W. 5S3, 13 L. R. A. 313. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 57-72.

27 Wilkinson v. Johnson, 3 Barn. & C. 428; Raper v. Birkback, 15 East, 17: Horst v. Wagner, 43 Iowa, 373, 22 Am. Rep. 255; Van Brunt v. Eoff, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 501; Neff v. Horner, 63 Pa. 327, 3 Am. Rep. 555. See "Alteration of Instruments," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 73-76.

28 Alderson v. Langdale, 3 Barn. & Adol. 660; Heath v. Blake, 28 S. C. 406, fraudulent intent, there can be no recovery, even on the original consideration; 29 but recovery on the original consideration may be had if the alteration was innocent.30