An immaterial alteration does not avoid a written contract.1 This is true whether the alteration was made innocently or fraudulently.2 In some authorities it has been said that even

5 State Solicitor's Co. v. Savage, 39 Fla. 703; 23 So. 413.

6 Carr v. Welch. 46 111. 88; Little-field v. Coombs, 71 Me. 110; Edward Thompson Co. v. Baldwin, 62 Neb. 530; 87 X. W. 307; Tremper v. Hemphill. 8 Leigh (Va.) 623; 31 Am. Dec. 673.

7 Reed v. Culp, 63 Kan. 595; 66 Pac. 616.

8 Boutelle v. Carpenter. 182 Mass. 417; 65 X. E. 799.

1Oakland First Xational Bank v. Wolff. 79 Cal. 69; 21 Pac. 551-748; Nichols v. Johnson. 10 Conn. 192; Shirley v. Swafford, 119 Ga. 43; 45 S. E. 722; Ryan v. Bank, 148 111. 349; 35 N. E. 1120; Mc-Kibben v. Newell, 41 111. 461: Reed v. Kemp. 16 111. 445; Shuck v. State, 136 Ind. 63; 35 N. E. 993; State ex rel. Jackson Township v. Berg, 50 Ind. 496; Rowley v. Jew-ett, 56 la. 492; 9 N. W. 353; Briscoe v. Reynolds, 51 la. 673: 2 N. W. 529; Shelton v. Deering. 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 405; Terry v. ITazle-wood, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 104: Hottinger v. Hottinger, 49 La. Ann. 1633: 22

So. 847; Granite Ry. Co. v. Bacon, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 239; Smith v. Crooker. 5 Mass. 538; Goodenow v. Curtis, 33 Mich. 505; Herrick v. Baldwin, 17 Minn. 209; 10 Am. Rep. 161; Bridges v. Winters, 42 Miss. 135; 2 Am. Rep. 598; 97 Am. Dec. 443; Heman v. Gilliam, 171 Mo. 258; 71 S. W. 163; Fisherdick v. Hutton, 44 Neb. 122; 62 N. W. 488; Palmer v. Largent, 5 Neb. 223; 25 Am. Rep. 479; Burnham v. Ayer, 35 N. H. 351; Pequawket Bridge v. Mathes, 8 N. H. 139; Flint v. Craig, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 319; .Robertson v. Hay, 91 Pa. St. 242; Blair v. Bank, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 84; Churchill v. Bieistein, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 445; Langdon v. Paul, 20 Vt. 217.

2 Vogel v. Ripper, 34 111. 100; 85 Am. Dec. 298; Makers v. Dunlap, 39 111. App. 618; Robinson v. Ins. Co.. 25 la. 430; Commonwealth v. Bank. 98 Mass. 12; 93 Am. Dec. 126. "An immaterial alteration cannot be made material simply by intent." Robinson v. Irs. Co., 25 la. 430, 435. " When men's aw*» an immaterial alteration avoids a written contract."' Thus it has been said that even an immaterial alteration in a money-bearing or title-bearing obligation avoids it.4 In some cases this statement is obiter as the alteration is held to be material,5 or was made to correct a mistake in expression,6 or the cases are cases of spoliation.7 The actual adjudications are almost all to the effect that an immaterial alteration is without legal effect, even if fraudulent.