If the alteration is made fraudulently no recovery can be had upon the original consideration.1 It seems to be held in cannot be the subject of judicial in-vestigation their motives cannot be inquired into." Moye v. Herndon, SO Miss. 110, 121.

3 1 Greenleaf on Ev„ Sec. 568; 2 Parson's Notes & Bills. 572; Bishop on Cont., Sec. 755. the latter author saying " Where in making an immaterial alteration, he means, a fraud, yet, mistaking the law does not accomplish his purpose the other party will, in reason, be discharged.".

4 Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422; 45 S. W. 300; affirming in banc, 37 S. W. 516.

5 United States Glass Co. v. Bottle Co., 81 Fed. 093; Crockett v. Thomason, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 342.

6 Turner v. Billagram, 2 Cal. 520.

7 Lumbering v. Kohlbrecher, 22 Mo. 596.

1 Bank v. Wharton, 27 N. S. 67; Hampton v. Mayers, 3 Ind. Terr. 65; 53 S. W. 483; Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227; 10 Am. Rep. 232; Savage v. Savage, 36 Or. 268; 59 Pac. 461; Keene v. Weeks & Al-drich, 19 R. I. 309; 33 Atl. 446; Otto v. Halff, 89 Tex. 384; 59 Am. St. Rep. 56; 34 S. W. 910; Matte-son v. Ellsworth, 33 Wis. 488; 14 Am. Rep. 766.

1 White v. Hass, 32 Ala. 430; 70 Am. Dec. 548; Maguire v. Eich-meier, 109 la. 301; 80 N. W. 395: Hocknell v. Sheley. 66 Kan. 357; 71 Pac. 839; Warder, etc.. Co. v. Will-yard, 46 Minn. 531; 24 Am. St. Rep. 250; 49 N. W. 300; Whitmer v.