The alteration of a contract without the consent of the adversary is a wrongful act, at least when not the correction of a mistake in expression, and it is often a criminal act. Since criminal or wrongful conduct will not be presumed, the weight of authority is that alterations apparent on the face of the instrument do not of themselves raise any presumption of its invalidity.1 Accordingly it is, under this rule, not necessary for the party relying upon the instrument to explain such alterations,2 the burden of proof is upon the party attacking the instrument,3 and it is not proper to leave it for the jury to say upon mere inspection of the instrument whether there had been an alteration therein after execution.4 This rule is applied with especial force to alterations which are self-explanatory.5 It has been said that this rule cannot apply where the signature of an obligor has been erased, since this must have been made after execution.6 However, since it is not signing but delivery that constitutes execution, the reason alleged for this rule does not seem to exist; and the rule itself is not always followed.7 This rule has been applied even where the alteration is of a character markedly different from the rest of the instrument.8 In other jurisdictions it has been held that alterations are presumed to have been made after execution.9 The burden of proof is on the party claiming under such contract, 10 show when the alterations were made.10 This rule has been applied to receipts.11 Evidence that such interlineations vere made before the contract was signed and delivered is sufficient to justify the admission of such an instrument in evidence.12

1 Locknane v. Emmerson, 11 Bush. (Ky.) 69; Bank v. Williams, 174 Pa. St. 66, 72; 35 L. R. A. 464; 34 Atl. 303, 304; McDaniel v. Whit-sett, 96 Tenn. 10; 33 S. W. 567..

2 Bank v. Williams, 174 Pa. St. 66, 72; 35 L. R. A. 464; 34 Atl. 303, 304.

3 Rogers v. Shaw, 59 Cal. 260.

4 McAlpin v. Clark, 11 Ohio C. C. 524.

1 Wood v. Steele, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 80; Elbert v. McClelland. 8 Bush. (Ky.) 577; Conner v. Fleshman, 4 W. Va. 693.

2 Wilson v. Hotchkiss. 81 Mich. 172; 45 N. W. 838; Cass County Bank v. Morrison. 17 Neb. 341; 52 Am. Rep. 417; 22 N. W. 782.

3 Cochran v. Nebeker, 48 Ind. 459; Stahl v. Berger. 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 170; 13 Am. Dec. 666.

4 Steele v. Spencer, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 552; Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385: 25 So. 780; Overton v. Matthews. 35 Ark. 146; 37 Am. Rep. 9. (This point not touched on in opinion in 37 Am. Rep. 9.) Heard v. Tappan. 116 Ga. 930; 43 S. E. 375; Milliken v. Marlin, 66 111. 13; Cochran v. Nebeker, 48 Ind. 459; Belfast Nat. Bank v. Harriman. 68 Me. 522; Fish-erdick v. Hutton. 44 Neb. 122: 62 N. W. 488; Burnham v. Aver. 35 N. H. 351; Stephens v. Graham. 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 505; 10 Am. Dec. 485; Kinard v. Glenn, 29 S. C. 590; 8 S. E. 203.

1 Klein v. Bank. 69 Ark. 140; 86 Am. St. Rep. 183; 61 S. W. 572; Gist v. Gans, 30 Ark. 285; Stayner v. Joyce, 120 Ind. 99; 22 N. E. 89; J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Peterson, 51 Kan. 713; 33 Pac. 470; Simpson v. Davis, 119 Mass. 269; 20 Am. Rep. 324; Willett v. Shep-ard, 34 Mich. 106; Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531; 12 Am. St. Rep. 754; 4 L. R. A. 196; 42 N. W. 467; Hodge v. Scott, 1 Neb. Unofficial 619; 95 N. W. 837; Goodin v. Plugge, 47 Neb. 284; 66 N. W. 407; Franklin v. Baker, 48 O. S. 296; 27 N. E. 550.

2 Klein v. Bank, 69 Ark. 140; 86 Am. St. Rep. 183; 61 S. W. 572.

3 Hart v. Sharpton. 124 Ala. 638; 27 So. 450; Galloway v. Bartholomew, - Or. - ; 74 Pac. 467.

4 Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136;

60 N. E. 907.

5 Hart v. Sharpton, 124 Ala. 638; 27 So. 450.

6 Blewett v. Bash, 22 Wash. 536;

61 Pac. 770.

7 Cass County v. Bank, 9 N. D. 263; 83 N. W. 12.

8 Graham v. Middleby, - Mass. -; 70 N. E. 416. Where the letter " s " in ink was added to the typewritten word " contract."

9 Montag v. Linn, 23 111. 503; Sis-son v. Pearson, 44 111. App. 81; McAllister v. Avery, 17 111. App. 568.

10 Landt v. McCullough, 206 111. 214; 69 N. E. 107; affirming, 103 111. App. 668; Cole v. Hills, 44 N. H.