(aa) Alexander v. Hickox, 34 Miss. 496.

(b) Davidson v. Cooper, 11 M. & W. 800; Withers v. Atkinson, 1 Watte, 236; Chessman v. Whittemore, 23 Pick. 231; Waring v. Smyth, 2 Barb. Ch. 119.

sory note by one of the makers, by increasing the amount for which it was made, by the insertion of words and figures in blank spaces left in the printed form on which it was written, avoids the note as to such makers as do not consent thereto, even in the bands of a bona fide holder for a valuable consideration. Greenfield Savings Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196; Cape Ann Bank v. Burns, 129 Mass. 596; Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427; Knoxville Bank v. Clark, 51 la. 264. See contra, Garrard v. Haddan, 67 Penn. St 82; Zimmerman v. Rote, 75 Penn. St. 188; Brown v. Reed, 79 Penn. St. 370; Cornell v. Nebeker, 58 Ind. 425. See McSparran v. Neeley, 91 Penn. St 17. That the erasure of a condition in a note written in pencil will not affect its validity, see Harvey v. Smith, 55 Ill. 224.