This principle has been extended to cases where the party sought in good faith to modify the instrument so as to conform to the intention of the parties, but for some reason failed in his alteration to express the real intention of the parties. Thus an innocent alteration of the date of the note, made in good faith, to correspond to the date of delivery under the belief that the parties intended such date, does not avoid the contract.1 A bona fide alteration in a memorandum of guaranty, made by guarantee without the knowledge of the guarantor, intended to correct an error in the amount of the debt, but which did not state the correct amount, does not avoid the memorandum, the debt being otherwise identified.2 Such an alteration will, however, discharge a party to the Written instrument who did not know of the real contract between the parties and was not a party thereto. Thus a change in the date to conform to the agreement of the maker and payee releases an accommodation indorser.3 A change after indorsement but before delivery, changing the place of payment to another state, releases an accommodation party.4

8 Temple v. Harrington, 00 Or. 205, 176 Pac. 430.

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

10 Osborn v. Hall, 160 Ind. 153, 66 N. E. 467.

11 Produce Exchange Trust Co. v. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577, 58 N. E. 162.

12 Derby v. Thrall, 44 Vt. 413, 8 Am. Rep. 389.

See also, Blenkiron Brothers v. Rogers, 87 Neb. 716, 31 L. R. A. (N.8.) 127, 127 N. W. 1062.

13 Ames v. Colburn, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 300, 71 Am. Dec. 723.

See also, Temple v. Harrington, 00 Or. 205, 176 Pac. 430.

1 Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22; Wallace v. Tice, 32 Or. 283, 51 Pac. 733 [citing, Bowers v. Jewell, 2 N. H. 543]; Kountz v. Kennedy, 63 Pa. St. 187, 3 Am. Rep. 541.

2 Lee v. Butler, 167 Mass. 426, 57 Am. St. Rep. 466, 46 N. E. 52.