If a material alteration has once been made, and the written contract thereby discharged, if the adversary party wishes to take advantage thereof, the subsequent erasure of such alteration should not make the original contract valid. If the original alteration was made fraudulently and liability on the original consideration was thereby discharged, this rule is recognized without dissent.1 Thus a note is avoided by the addition of "with interest," even if erased before transfer to a bona fide holder.2 In the case of innocent alterations some authorities hold that the erasure of such alteration restores the validity of the note.3 This rule has been applied even to sureties who could not have been held liable on the original consideration. Thus the addition, after surety has signed, of "with interest at 7 per cent" in accordance with an understanding with payee, and its erasure by payee without fraudulent intent do not release surety.4

6 Johnson v. Johnson, 66 Mich. 525; 33 N. W. 413; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo. 449.

7 Prouty v. Wilson, 123 Mass. 297.

8 Landwerlen v. Wheeler, 106 Ind. 523; 5 N. E. 888; Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Or. 64; 43 Pac. 867.

9 Cutler v. Rose. 35 la. 456: Boalt v. Brown, 13 O. S. 364; McDaniel v. Whitsett, 96 Tenn. 10; 33 S. W. 567.

10 McDaniel v. Whitsett, 96 Tenn. N- 33 S. W. 567.

11 Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385; 25 So. 780; Jacobs v. Gilreath, 45 S. C. 46: 22 S. E. 757.

12 Nesbitt v. Turner. 155 Pa. St. 429; 26 Atl. 750; Kilkelly v. Martin. 34 Wis. 525.

13 Dickson v. Bamberger, 107 Ala. 293; 18 So. 290; Fairhaven v. Cow-gill. 8 Wash. 687; 36 Pac. 1093.

14 Dickson v. Bamberger, 107 Ala. 293; 18 So. 290.