A change in the parties to the instrument is generally a material alteration.1 A change in the name of the promisor is a material alteration.2 Thus adding "& Co." to the maker's signature is a material alteration.3 Erasure of the name of the maker of the instrument releases a co-maker who does not assent thereto.4 Where one surety's name was erased and another one was added, a surety who did not consent thereto is released from the bond5 or note6 which he had signed. A signed a note after delivery. His name was subsequently erased. As parties to the note would be entitled to hold A, the erasure avoids the note.7

1 1llnois. Ryan v. First National Bank, 148 111. 340 [sub nomine, Reilly v. First National Bank, 35 N.E. 1120]; Keller v. State Bank, - 111. -, 127 N. E. 94.

Iowa. Hall v. McHenry, 10 la. 521, 87 Am. Dec. 451.

Minnesota. 0. N. Bull Remedy Co. v. Clark, 100 Minn. 396, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 510, 124 N. W. 20.

Oklahoma. Bank of Commerce v. Webster, - Okla. -, L. R. A. 1018F, 696, 172 Pac. 942.

Pennsylvania. Craighead v. McLoney, 99 Pa. 211; Hartley v. Corboy, 150 Pa. 23, 24 Atl. 205.

Vermont. Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521; Derby v. Thrall, 44 Vt. 413, 8 Am. Rep. 380.

Virginia. Hoffman v. Bank, 99 Va. 480, 39 S. E. 134.

Washington. Washington Finance

Corporation v. Glass, 74 Wash. 653, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043, 134 Pac. 480.

1 Alabams. Montgomery v. Crosth-wait, 00 Ala. 553, 24 Am. St. Rep. 832, 12 L. R. A. 140, 8 So. 408.

Missouri. State v. McGonigle, 101 Mo. 353, 20 Am. St. Rep. 609, 8 L. R. A. 735, 13 S. W. 758,

North Dakota. Eaton v. Delay, 32 N. D. 328, L. R. A. 1916D, 528, 155 N. W. 644.

Ohio. Davis v. Bauer, 41 O. S. 257.

Oklahoma. Cox v. Kirkwood, 59 Okla. 133, 158 Pac. 030.

South Dakota. Holbart v. Lauritson, 34 S. D. 267, 53 L. R. A. (N.S.) 166, 148 N. W. 10.

Wisconsin. Donkle v. Milem, 88 Wis. 33, 50 N. W. 586.

2 Vincent v. People, 25 111. 412; Davis v. Coleman, 20 N. Car. (7 Ired. L.) 424; North v. Henneberry, 44 Wis. 306. (deed).

A change in the name of the promisee is a material alteration,8 such as the substitution of the name of the husband for that of his wife as payee;9 or the addition of words which make the note payable to payee or bearer, the note being payable to payee only in its original form;10 or a change by the party for whose benefit a note was given, of the name of the payee, from the name of the bank to which it was made payable, to his own name;l 1 or the addition of " junior" to the name of the payee in a note, making it thereby payable to a different person.12

Even though the addition of words which operate as a descriptio personae do not alter the identity of the party, it has been held that they may change the legal effect of the instrument; and accordingly such modifications are regarded as material alterations.13 However, where the indorsee of a note drew a line through the name of the payees, inserted his own name and had the payees indorse it over to him, it was held that there was no material alteration.14 The erasure of the name of a surety is not such a material alteration as to discharge the principal.15

3 Montgomery v. Crosthwait, 90 Ala. 553, 24 Am. St. Rep. 832, 12 L. R. A. 140, 8 So. 498.

See Wilde v. Armsby, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 314, that such a change in the name of the principal debtor avoids the contract as to a guarantor.

4 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U. S. (24 How.) 315, 16 L. ed. 689; Smith v. United States, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 219, 17 L. ed. 788.

5 Smith v. United States, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 219, 17 L. ed. 788; State v. McGonigle; 101 Mo. 353, 20 Am. St. Rep. 609, 8 L. R. A. 735, 13 S. W. 758. (As the substituted surety signed, meaning only to be one of several sureties, he, too, is released.)

6 Davis v. Coleman, 29 N. Car. (7 Ired. L.) 424.

7 Bank v. Weidenbeck, 87 Fed. 271. (Hence it releases directors from personal liability for not filing a corporate report.)

8 Indiana. Fudge v. Marquell, 164 Ind. 447, 72 N. E. 565, 73 N. E. 895.

Iowa. Bell v. Mahin, 69 la. 408, 29 N. W. 331.

Nebraska. Erickson v. Bank, 44 Neb. 622, 48 Am. St. Rep. 753, 28 L. R. A. 577, 62 N, W. 1078.

Ohio. Davis v. Bauer, 41 O. S. 257.

Oklahoma. International Bank v. Mullen, 30 Okla. 547, 120 Pac. 257; Cox v. Kirkwood, 59 Okla. 183, 158 Pac. 930.

South Dakota. Holbart v. Laurit-son, 34 S. D. 267, L. R. A. 1915A, 166, 148 N. W. 19.

Vermont Holden v. Rutland Ry., 73 Vt. 317, 50 Atl 1096 (mileage book).

Virginia. Hoffman v. Bank, 99 Va. 480, 39 S. E. 134.

9 Sneed v. Sabinal Mining & Milling Co., 71 Fed. 493, 18 C. C. A. 213 [affirmed on rehearing, 73 Fed. 925].

10 Cox v. Kirkwood, 59 Okla. 183, 158 Pac. 930.

11 Holbart v. Lauritson, 34 S. D. 267, L. R. A. 1915A, 166, 148 N. W. 19.

12 Broughton v. Fuller, 9 Vt. 373.