A question sometimes presented for adjudication is whether an alteration of a memorandum in writing on the same piece of paper as the written contract, but not in the body thereof is a material alteration. If the writing thus altered is in legal effect a part of the contract a change therein is a material alteration.1 Thus cutting off an application for insurance from the top of a promissory note to secure assessments, even if a perforated line was originally upon the paper between the application and the note,2 or cutting off from the bottom of a note "subject to a settlement between us,"3 are each material alterations. On the other hand an indorsement on the back of a note, added after delivery,4 such as an indorsement of partial payment,5 is no part of the note, and adding a date to such indorsement6 or erasing it, even if done fraudulently,7 is not a material alteration. If, however, one claims title through an indorsement, it is as to him, a material part of the contract. Hence if an indorsement " for collection "8 is cancelled, this is a material change, and a subsequent purchaser of the note from such indorsee is put on inquiry.

221; 37 Am. Rep. 68; Scott v. Walker, Dudley (Ga.) 243; Johnson v. Bank, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 310; Cros-well v. Labree, 81 Me. 44; 10 Am. St. Rep. 238; 16 Atl. 331; Simmons v. Atkinson, 69 Miss. 862; 23 L. R. A. 599; 12 So. 263; Walton Plow Co. v. Campbell, 35 Neb. 173; 16 L. R. A. 468; 52 N. W. 883.

3 Needles v. Shaffer, 60 Ia. 65; Belknap v. Bank, 100 Mass. 376; 97 Am. Dec. 105; Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22; Marshall v. Wilhite, 2 Ohio C. D. 500; Bank v. Roberts, 45 Wis. 373.

4 Bank v. Wharton, 27 N. S. 67.

1Winter v. Pool, 100 Ala. 503; 14 So. 411; Pahlman v. Taylor, 75 I11. 629; McCoy v. Lockwood, 71 Ind. 319; Charlton v. Reed, 61 Ia.

166; 47 Am. Rep. 808; 16 N. W. 64; Sturges v. Williams, 9 O. S. 443; 75 Am. Dec. 473.

2 Pope v. Bank, 23 Ind. App. 210; 54 N. E. 835; Woodworth v. Bank, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 391; 10 Am. Dec. 239.

3 Brady v. Coal Mining Co., 106 Fed. 824; 45 C. C. A. 662. (By interlining " f. o. b. cars at mine "to show the place of delivery.) See also Brady v. Coal Mining Co., 94 Fed. 28.

1 Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385; 25 So. 780; Cochran v. Nebeker, 48 Ind. 459; Scofield v. Ford, 56 Ia. 370; 9 N. W. 309; Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396; 10 Am. Rep. 382; Rochford v. McGee, - S. D. - ; 61 L. R. A. 335; 94 N. W. 695.