A Change which is made in the language of a written instrument by one who is not a party thereto and who does not act under the authority of a party thereto, is technically a spoliation,1 and not an alteration, although it is frequently spoken of as an alteration.

This confusion in terms arose at a time at which spoliation by a stranger and alteration by a party had the same legal consequences;2 and, accordingly, it was not necessary to distinguish between the two. Since the consequences of spoliation are differ-ent, in most jurisdictions, from alteration, the two should be distinguished by using different names to express different ideas, and to distinguish between transactions which have different legal consequences.

1 United States. United States v. Spalding, 2 Mason (U. S.) 482, 27 Fed. Cases, 1278; Clyde Steamship Co. v. Whaley, 231 Fed. 76, L. R. A. 1916F, 289.

Alabama. Forbes v. Taylor, 139 Ala. 286, 35 So. 855.

Arkansas. Andrews v. Calloway, 50 Ark. 358, 7 S. W. 449; Faulkner v. Feazel, 113 Ark. 289, 168 S. W. 56S; Robertson v. Southwestern Co., 136 Ark. 417, 206 S. W. 755.

California. Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 46, 39 L R A. 697, 52 Pac. 115.

Connecticut. Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192.

Florida. Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla. 244, 15 So. 770.

Georgia. Shirley v. Swafford, 119 Ga. 43, 45 S. E. 722.

Illinois. Fry v. Jenkins, 173 111. App. 486.

Indiana. Cochran v. Nebeker, 48 Ind. 459.

Kentucky. Lee v. Alexander, 48 Ky. (9 B. Mon.) 25, 48 Am. Dec. 412.

Massachusetts. Chessman v. Whit-temore, 40 Mass. (23 Pick.) 231.

Minnesota. Ames v. Brown, 22 Minn. 257.

Mississippi. Bridges v. Winters, 42

Miss. 135, 97 Am. Dec. 443, 2 Am. Rep. 598.

New Jersey. Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227, 10 Am. Rep. 232.

New York. Rees v. Overbaugh, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 746; Jackson v. Malin, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 293.

Ohio. Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 O. S. 530.

Pennsylvania. Robertson v. Hay, 91 Pa. St. 242; Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. St. 327, 103 Atl. 49.

South Carolina. White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, 104 Am. St. Rep. 791, 48 S. E. 41.

Tennessee. Boyd v. MeConnell, 29 Tenn. (10 Humph.) 68.

Vermont. Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521.

Washington. Murray v. Peterson, 6 Wash. 418, 33 Pac. 969; Edwards v. Thompson, 99 Wash. 188, 169 Pac. 327.

Wisconsin. Union National Bank v. Roberts, 45 Wis. 373.

"Any change made by a stranger to the instrument, without the connivance or consent of the parties, is, strictly speaking, a spoliation." Edwards v. Thompson, 99 Wash. 188, 169 Pac. 327.

2 See Sec. 3119.