A memorandum made upon the same piece of paper as a written contract, but not, in legal effect, a part thereof, is not a material alteration,1 such as a pencil memorandum which on its face does not purport to be a part of the instrument, noting the bank where payment is to be made,2 or otherwise noting the place of payment;3 or a memorandum added to an assignment of an insurance policy to the effect that the loan for which the assignment was given was to be repaid on notice of thirty or sixty days by the assignee;4 or a memorandum written across the face of a fifteen hundred dollar note that it was to be paid to another, amount reduced to one thousand dollars.5 A memorandum concerning interest written upon the instrument,6 as a memorandum by the payee, "I hereby agree to accept five (5) per cent. annual interest on the within bond from June 1, 1890,"7 or an indorsement made by one who has purchased realty encumbered by mortgage, made on the note evidencing the mortgage debt, whereby he agrees to pay seven per cent, interest instead of six per cent.,8 is not a material alteration.

Arkansas. White Sewing Machine Co. v. Atkinson, 126 Ark. 204, 100 S. W. 111.

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

Iowa. Scofield v. Ford, 56 la. 370, 9 N. W. 309.

Kansas. Kurth v. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank, 77 Kan. 475, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 612, 94 Pac. 798.

Michigan. Cassopolis First National Bank v. Carter, 138 Mich. 421, 101 N. W. 585; Stevens v. Venema, 202 Mich. 232, L. R. A. 1918F, 1145, 168 N. W. 531.

New York. Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. T. 396, 10 Am. Rep. 382.

South Dakota. Rochford v. McGee, 16 S. D. 606, 61 L. R. A. 335, 94 N. W. 695.

Texas. Baldwin v. Haskell National Bank, 104 Tex. 122, 133 S. W. 864, 134 S. W. 1178.

2 Kurth v. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank, 77 Kan. 475, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 612, 94 Pac. 798.

3 Rochford v. McGee, 16 S. D. 606, 61 L. R. A. 335, 94 N. W. 695.

See Sec. 3087.

4 Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385, 25 So. 780.

5 Cambridge Sav. Bank v. Hyde, 131 Mass. 77, 41 Am. Rep. 193.

6 Howe v. Thompson, 11 Me. 152; Theopold Mercantile Co. v. Deike, 76 Minn. 121, 77 Am. St. Rep. 607, 78 N. W. 977.

7 Howe v. Thompson, 11 Me. 152.

8 Theopold Mercantile Co. v. Deike, 76 Minn. 121, 77 Am. St. Rep. 607, 78 N. W. 977.

9 Cussen v. Brandt, 97 Va. 1, 75 Am. St. Rep. 762, 32 S. E. 791.

1 Arkansas. Mente v. Townsend, 68 Ark. 391, 59 S. W. 41.

Florida. State Solicitors' Co. v. Savage, 39 Fla. 703, 23 So. 413.

Illinois. Carr v. Welch, 46 III. 88.

Indiana. Light v. Killinger, 16 Ind. App. 102, 59 Am. St Rep. 313, 44 N. E. 760.

If the memorandum is, in legal effect, a part of the contract, the addition thereof is as much an alteration as a similar interlineation in the body of the instrument would have been.9 A change of the date which the instrument bears can not be regarded as a mere memorandum of the time at which it is to begin to bear interest.10

Kansas. Reed v. Culp, 63 Kan 595, 66 Pac. 616.

Massachusetts. Boutelle v. Carpenter, 182 Mass. 417, 65 N. E. 709.

Minnesota. White v Johns, 24 Minn-387.

Such addition is not a part of the contract as against one who does not assent thereto. Jones v Wixom, -Wis. -, 174 N. W. 895.

2 Light v. Killinger, 16 Ind. App. 102, 59 Am. St. Rep 313, 44 N. E. 760.

Apparently contra, Wood worth v. Bank, 19 Johns. (N Y ) 391, 10 Am. Dec. 239; a memorandum of payment being treated as prima facie a part of the contract and hence a material alteration.

3 American National Bank v. Bangs, 42 Mo. 450, 97 Am. Dec. 349

4 Mente v. Townsend, 68 Ark 391, 59 8. W. 41.

5 State Solicitors' Co. v. Savage, 39 Fla. 703, 23 So. 413.

6 Carr v. Welch, 46 111. 88, Littlefield v. Coombs, 71 Me. 110; Edward Thompson Co v. Baldwin, 62 Neb. 530, 87 N W 307; Tremper v. Hemphill, 35 Va (8 Leigh) 623, 31 Am. Dec. 673.

7 Reed v. Culp, 63 Kan 595, 66 Pac. 616.

8 Boutelle v. Carpenter, 182 Mass. 417, 65 N E. 799.

See also, In re Baker's Estate, -Kan. -, 187 Pac. 870.

9 Kentucky. Warren v. Fant, 79 Ky 1.

Nebraska. Edward Thompson Co. v Baldwin, 62 Neb. 530, 87 N. W. 307.

South Carolina. Sanders v. Bagwell, 32 S. Car. 238, 7 L. R. A. 743. 10 S. E. 946

Vermont. Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L R. A. (NS.) 346, 89 Atl. 639

Wisconsin. Kilkelly v. Martin, 34 Wis. 525.

10 Barton Savings Bank & Trust Go. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 346, 89 Atl. 639.