An immaterial alteration is one which does not change the legal effect of the written instrument.1 Thus the addition of a provision fixing the rate of interest at the legal rate where no rate had been fixed in the written contract ;2 change of the rate of interest in excess of the rate fixed by the written contract where such rate was the highest allowed by law ;3 adding "or order" to an indorsement in blank ;4 adding " or bearer" to an instrument which is non-negotiable because subject to conditions ;5 and adding " payment guaranteed " over the signature of an indorser where the note waives presentment, notices and protest,6 are immaterial alterations. So where days of grace are allowed only on bills of exchange or on notes placed on the same footing, the addition of the word "fixed " to the date of maturity of a note, thereby providing against days of grace, has been held to be an immaterial alteration in case the note is never put on the footing of a bill of exchange by being discounted at a bank, though it was payable at a bank and might have been put on the footing of a bill of exchange.7 Since marginal figures are no part of a note8 an alteration in such marginal figures,9 as changing them from $1,500 to $1,000,10 or from $000 to $650," is not a material alteration. Inserting an additional provision which has been performed before such insertion, as a provision for security, which is already given,12 or an agreement to become surety on a renewal note, which has already been done,13 is immaterial. So the erasure from a building contract of a recital of receipt of the first payment, which has not in fact been made, is immaterial, since such term is not contractual and could have been contradicted by extrinsic evidence.14 In a contract between property owners and the contractor for grading a street which provided that each owner was to pay in proportion to his interest in the abutting property, an interlineation was made, " Each party hereto to pay only such parts of the total cost as his front footage bears to the total frontage improved in said street." Such interlineation was held to be immaterial.15 The addition to the correct description of realty in a mortgage the words "containing one hundred sixty acres more or less," which is the correct number, has been held immaterial.16 The addition of an internal revenue stamp has been held to be an immaterial alteration of a note payable in Massachusetts, since the Massachusetts courts have held that the provision of the Federal statutes making such instruments inadmissible in evidence if a revenue stamp is not affixed, applies only to the Federal courts and not the state courts.17

A. 717; 70 Pac. 330; Greenfield Savings Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196; 25 Am. Rep. 67; Wade v. Withington, 1 All. (Mass.) 561; Seebold v. Tatlie, 76 Minn. 131; 78 N. W. 967; Simmons v. Lampton Co., 69 Miss. 862; 23 L. R. A. 599; 12 So. 263; Newman v. King, 54 O. S. 273; 56 Am. St. Rep. 705; 35 L. R. A. 471; 43 N. E. 683; Citizens' National Bank v. Williams, 174 Pa. St. 66; 35 L. R. A. 464; 34 Atl. 304; Bank v. Novich, 89 Tex. 381; 34 S. W. 914.

9 Citizen's National Bank v. Williams, 174 Pa. St. 66; 35 L. R. A. 464; 34 Atl. 304.

10 Bank v. Novich, 89 Tex. 381; 34 S. W. 914.

11 Fordyce v. Kosminski, 49 Ark. 40; 4 Am. St. Rep. 18; 3 S. W. 892; Bank v. Wangerin, 65 Kan. 423; 59 L. R. A. 717; 70 Pac. 330; Mid-daugh v. Elliott, 61 Mo. App. 601;

Rochford v. McGee, - S. D. - ; 61 L. R. A. 335; 94 N. W. 695.

12 Rochford v. McGee, - S. D. - ; 61 L. R. A. 335; 94 N. W. 695.

13 Croswell v. Labree, 81 Me. 44; 10 Am. St. Rep. 238; 16 Atl. 331; Wolferman v. Bell. 6 Wash. 84; 36 Am. St. Rep. 126; 32 Pac. 1017. So in Georgia by -statute. Miller v Slade, 116 Ga. 772; 43 S. E. 69; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334; 40 S. E. 227.

1 Carlisle v. Bank. 122 Ala. 446; 26 So. 115; Bucklen v. Huff, 53 Ind. 474: Huff v. Cole, 45 Ind. 300; Laub v. Rudd, 37 Ia. 617; Bank v. Hyde, 131 Mass. 77; 41 Am. Rep. 193; Moore v. Bank. 22 Mo. App. 684; First National Bank v. Mack, 35 Or. 122; 57 Pac. 326; Bank v. Evans. 9 W. Va. 373.

2 Port Huron First National Bank v. Carson, 60 Mich. 432; 27 N. W. 589.

3 Keene v. Miller, 103 Ky. 628; 45 S. W. 1041. Contra, Harsh v. Klepper, 28 O. S. 200.

4 Weaver v. Bromley, 65 Mich. 212; 31 N. W. 839.

5 Goodenow v. Curtis, 33 Mich. 505.

6 Iowa Valley State Bank v. Sig-stad, 96 la. 491; 65 N. W. 407.

7 Tranter v. Hibberd, 108 Ky. 265; 56 S. W. 169.

8Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136; 85 Am. St. Rep. 246; 60 N. E. 907; Smith v. Smith, 1 R. I. 398; 53 Am. Dec. 652.

9 Prim v. Hammel. 134 Ala. 652:

92 Am. St. Rep. 52; 32 So. 1006; Horton v. Horton, 71 la. 448; 32 N. W. 452; Johnston Harvester Co. v. McLean, 57 Wis. 258; 46 Am. Rep. 39; 15 N. W. 177.

10 Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652; 92 Am. St. Rep. 52; 32 So. 1006.

11 Schryver v. Hawks, 22 O. S. 308.

12 J. I. Case, etc., Co. v. Ebbig-hausen, 11 N. D. 466; 92 N. W. 826.

13 Bank v. Miner, 9 Colo. App. 361; 48 Pac. 837.

14 Sullivan v. Realty Co., 142 Cal. 201 : 75 Pac. 767.