A material alteration avoids the written contract.1 Thus a material alteration of a contract,2 though with the consent of the other parties thereto,3 releases a surety thereon. It is, however, error to restrict the effect of a material alteration as discharge to the case of sureties.4 Any material alteration releases a party who does not consent thereto, no matter how many other parties have consented. This is so whether the alteration is fraudulent or innocent.5 It makes ho difference whether the change makes the contract less favorable or more favorable6 to the adversary party. A material alteration avoids a contract not only as to the party making it, but as to an innocent transferee, such as a bona fide assignee who is not an indorsee.7 A negotiable instrument which has been altered materially is unenforceable, even in the hands of a bona, fide holder without notice who takes for value and before maturity.8

1Wood v. Steele, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 80; Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385; 25 So. 780; Montgomery v. Crossthwait, 90 Ala. 553; 24 Am. St. Rep. 832; 12 L. R. A. 140; 8 So. 498; Anderson v. Bellenger, 87 Ala. 334; 13 Am. St. Rep. 46; 4 L. R. A. 680; 6 So. 82; Palmer v. Poor, 121 Ind. 135; 6 L. R. A. 469; 22 N. E. 984; Haskell v. Champion, 30 Mo. 136; Ball v. Beaumont, - Neb. - ; 92 N. W. 170; Newman v. King, 54 O. S. 273; 56 Am. St. Rep. 705; 35 L. R. A. 471; 43 N. E. 683; Consumers' Ice Co. v. Jennings, 100 Va. 719; 42 S. E. 879. See cases cited in Sec. 1518-1528.

2 Carrique v. Beaty, 24 Ont. App. 302; State Solicitor's Co. v. Savage, 39 Fla. 703; 23 So. 413.

3 United States Glass Co. v. Bottle Co., 81 Fed. 993; Thompson v. Massie, 41 O. S. 307.

4 Ball v. Beaumont, - Neb. - ; 92 N. W. 170.

5 Green v. Sneed, 101 Ala. 205;

46 Am. St. Rep. 119; 13 So. 277; Hall v. McHenry, 19 Ia. 521; 87 Am. Dec. 451; Fay v. Smith, 1 All. (Mass.) 477; 79 Am. Dec. 752; Harsh v. Klepper, 28 O. S. 200; Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513; 60 Pac. 270. Apparently contra, Wolferman v. Bell, 6 Wash. 84; 36 Am. St. Rep. 126; 32 Pac. 1017.

6 Brown v. Johnson, 127 Ala. 292; 85 Am. St. Rep. 134; 51 L. R. A. 403; 28 So. 579; Weir Plow Co. v. Walmsley. 110 Ind. 242; 11 N. E. 232; Humphreys v. Guillow, 13 N. H. 385; 38 Am. Dec. 499.

7Burch v. Daniel. 101 Ga. 228; 28 S. E. 622; Searles v. Seipp, 6 S. D. 472; 61 N. W. 804.

8 Fordyce v. Kosminski, 49 Ark. 40; 4 Am. St. Rep. 18; 3 S. W. 892; Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. D. C. 1; Derr v. Keaough, 96 Ia. 397; 65 N. W. 339; Knoxville National Bank v. Clark, 51 Ia. 264; 33 Am. Rep. 129; 1 N. W. 491; Bank v. Wangerin, 65 Kan. 423; 59 L. P.,

While in some of the cases in which a bona fide holder has not been allowed to recover on an altered negotiable instrument, the alteration was apparent on the face of the instrument,9 the doctrine does not. rest upon this ground. As long as the maker has not been negligent in giving opportunity for alteration10 alteration discharges the instrument, even if it is so skilfully done as to deceive a prudent man.11 Even if the maker signs a note separated by a perforated line from the rest of the contract it is held that he is not necessarily negligent.12 In some jurisdictions, however, an innocent material alteration does not avoid the contract,13