To constitute alteration the contract must be so changed physically as to express an intention different from the real agreement of the parties.1

The effect of alteration of a contract containing mistake in expression, by which alteration such contract is made to conform to the real agreement of the parties, presents some questions for consideration. If the parties agree to such informal reformation there is no question as to its validity.2 If the parties have not agreed to such correction, the right of one party to constitute himself chancellor and to decree reformation in an ex parte proceeding on his own evidence, without notice to the adversary party, and to execute his decree forthwith, is more questionable. It has been held, however, that as between the parties to the contract who knew of the mistake, such alteration does not avoid the contract.3 In some jurisdictions a modification of this sort is not regarded as technical alteration, while in other jurisdictions the courts reach the same result and uphold the contract on the theory that while it may be an alteration, it is not a material alteration.4 An instrument is not avoided in equity by such alteration.5

1 Tutwiler v. Burns, 160 Ala. 386, 49 So. 455; Citizens' State Bank v. Johnson County, 182 Ky. 531, 207 S. W. 8; Dunn v. Clements, 52 N. Car. 58.

2 See Sec. 3080 et seq.

3 Citizens' State Bank v. Johnson County, 182 Ky. 531, 207 S. W. 8; Dunn v. Clements, 52 N. Car. 58.

4 Dunn v. Clements, 52 N. Car. 58. 5 Dunn v. Clements, 52 N. Car. 58.

1 California. Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal. 294.

Illinois. Ryan v. First National Bank, 148 111. 349 [sub nomine, Reilly v. First National Bank, 35 N. E. 1120].

Iowa. McLaughlin v. American Fire Insurance Co., 126 la. 149, 106 Am. St. Rep. 344, 101 N. W. 765.

Kansas, Edington v. McLeod, 87 Kan. 426, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 230, 124 Pac. 163.

Kentucky. Duker v. Franz, 70 Ky. (7 Bush.) 273, 3 Am. Rep. 314.

Massachusetts. Ames v. Colburn, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 390, 71 Am. Dec. 723; Nickerson v. Swett, 135 Mass. 514.

Michigan. Goodenow v. Curtis, 33 Mich. 505; First National Bank v. Carson, 60 Mich. 432, 27 N. W. 589.

Mississippi. McRaven v. Crisler, 53 Miss. 542.

Nebraska. Blenkiron Brothers v. Rogers, 87 Neb. 716, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 127, 127 N. W. 1062.

Oregon. Temple v. Harrington, 90 Or. 295, 176 Pac. 430.

Pennsylvania. Kountz v. Kennedy, 63 Pa. St. 187, 3 Am. Rep. 541.

Wyoming. McLaughlin v. Venine, 2 Wyom. 1.

2 Bryant v. Bank, 107 Tenn. 560, 64 S. W. 895.

The agent of the insurer may modify the policy so as to conform to the agreement of the parties, even after loss,6 at least if such modification will increase the liability of the insurer. If, by mistake, the policy does not express on its face all of the risks which the "insurer assumes, the agent may attach a slip which makes the written contract conform to the actual agreement, even after loss.7 If the parties intend to provide that a note bears interest from date, and by mistake the word "annum" is written instead of the word "date," the act of the holder in changing the word "annum" to "date" is not a material alteration.8 If a written contract through inadvertence uses, for the name of the promisee, the corporate name which the promisee had once had, the alteration of the contract by the promisee so as to set forth its present corporate name, in accordance with the actual intention of the parties, is not a material alteration.9 An alteration in the rate of interest, as a change from eight per cent, as printed to seven and a half per cent. as the parties had agreed upon;10 or a change in words importing liability, as a change from words importing individual liability to words importing corporate liability incurred through the individuals signing the notes as agents for the corporation, to conform to the real intention of the parties;11 a change in the name of the payee,12 or a change in the date,13 does not avoid the contract if made to correct a mistake in expression.

3 England. Byrom v. Thompson, 11 Ad. & El. 31.

United States. Hamrick v. Patrick, 110 U. S. 156, 30 L. ed. 396 (deed).

Alabama. Yarbough Turpentine Co. v. Taylor, - Ala. -, 73 So. 458.

California. Sill v. Reese, 47 Cat. 294; Bank v. Spaulding, - Cal. --, 170 Pac. 407.

Illinois. Merritt v. Dewey, 218 111. 500, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 217, 75 N. E. 1066.

Iowa. McLaughlin v. American Fire Insurance Co., 126 la. 140, 106 Am. St. Rep. 344, 101 N. W. 765.

Kansas. Edington v. McLeod, 87 Kan. 426, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 230, 124 Pac. 163.

Kentucky. Duker v. Franz, 70 Ky. (7 Bush.) 273, 3 Am. Rep. 314.

Massachusetts. Ames v. Colburn, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 300, 71 Am. Dec. 723; Nickerson v. Swett, 135 Mass. 514; Produce Exchange Trust Co. v. Bie-berbach, 176 Mass. 577, 58 N. E. 162.

Michigan. Goodenow v. Curtis, 33 Mich. 505; First National Bank v. Carson, 60 Mich. 432, 27 N. W. 589.

Minnesota. Spiering v. Spicring, 138 Minn. 110, 164 N. \V. 583.

Mississippi McRavert v. Crisler, 53 Miss. 542.

Nebraska. Blenkiron Brothers v. Rogers, 87 Neb. 716, 31 L. R. A. (N. S ) 127, 127 N. W. 1062.

Pennsylvania. Kountz v. Kennedy, 63 Pa. St. 187, 3 Am. Rep. 541.

Wyoming. McLaughlin v. Venine, 2 Wyom. 1.

4 Blenkiron Bros. v. Rogers, 87 Neb 716, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 127, 127 N. W. 1062.

See, for a case in which the alteration affected the liability of an assenting guarantor, and was therefore immaterial as to the principal, Ryan v. First National Bank, 148 111. 349 [sub nomine, Reilly v. First National Bank, 35 N. E. 1120].

5 McClure v. Little, 15 Utah 379, 62 Am. St. Rep. 938, 49 Pac. 298. .

6 McLaughlin v. American Fire Ins. Co., 126 la. 149, 106 Am. St. Rep. 344, 101 N. W. 765.

7 Mclaughlin v. American Fire Ins. Co., 126 la. 149, 106 Am. St. Rep. 344, 101 N. W. 765.