(2) A change in the language of a written instrument after execution with the assent of all the parties thereto, operates as a discharge of the original contract and the substitution of a new contract therefor.1 Thus with the consent of the parties an alteration changing the amount of indebtedness,2 changing the rate of interest,3 or adding an agreement to a deed that a lien is retained to secure the purchase-money notes,4 does not discharge the instrument. Authority to make such alteration may be implied. Thus an agreement to release certain guarantors gives implied authority to cancel their names from negotiable notes which might be transferred to bona fide holders.5 This rule applies, of course, only to such parties to the contract as consent to such change. If an alteration is made with the consent of two of the parties to the contract, but without the consent of a third party thereto, such third party is discharged by such alteration.6

4 Sloman v. Express Co., - Mich. -; 95 N. W. 999.

5 State v. McGonigle, 101 Mo. 353; 20 Am. St. Rep. 609; 8 L. R. A. 735n; 13 S. W. 758.

6 Pelton v. Lumber Co., 113 Cal. 21; 45 Pac. 12; Aetna National Bank v. Winchester, 43 Conn. 391; Draper v. Wood, 112 Mass. 315; 17 Am. Rep. 92; Aldrich v. Smith, 37 Mich. 468; 26 Am. Rep. 536; Ruby v. Talbott, 5 N. M. 251; 3 L. R. A. 724; 21 Pac. 72; Ohio Valley Bank v. Lockwood, 13 W. Va. 392; 31 Am. Rep. 768.

7 Pelton v. Lumber Co., 113 Cal. 21; 45 Pac. 12.

1 Phillips v. Crips, 108 la. 605; 79 N. W. 373; Mathias v. Leathers, 99 la. 18; 68 N. W. 449; Boston v. Benson, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 61; Bryant v. Bank, 107 Tenn. 560; 64 S. W. 895; Schmelz v. Rix, 95 Va. 509; 28 S. E. 890; Kane v. Herman, 109 Wis. 33; 85 N. W. 140.

2 Increasing it. Mathias v. Leathers, 99 la. 18; 68 N. W. 449.

3 Phillips v. Crips, 108 la. 605; 79 N. W. 373.

4 Bryant v. Bank, 107 Tenn. 560; 64 S. W. 895.