The fundamental classification of contracts at common law was into formal contracts, which included the contracts under seal and simple contracts. The addition or the mutilation of a seal has always been regarded as a material alteration where the seal had its common-law effect, or where by statute a sealed instrument was in any way different from an instrument not under seal.1 The addition of a seal to an instrument which was executed as a simple instrument is a material alteration,2 as where such addition, if operative, would render the instrument subject to a different statute of limitations from that which was applicable to a sealed instrument.3

5 Catton v. Simpson, 8 Ad. & El. 136.

6 Gardner v. Walsh, 5 El. & Bl. 83. 7 Mersman v. Worges, 112 U. S. 139,

28 L. ed. 641. (The added signature was a forgery of the name of the maker's wife.)

8 Bank v. Weidenbeck, 87 Fed. 271.

9 Bank v. Weidenbeck, 97 Fed. 896, 38 C. C. A. 131.

1 England. Mathewson's Case, 5 Coke 22b (except as to seal of obligor under a several contract). Seaton v. Henson, 2 Show. 29.

United States. United States v. Linn, 42 U. S. (1 How.) 104, 11 L. ed. 64.

Massachusetts. Warring v. Williams, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 322.

Michigan. Rawson v. Davidson, 49 Mich. 607. 14 N. W. 565.

New York. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Siefke, 144 N. Y. 354, 39 N. E. 358.

Pennsylvania. Rittenhouse v. Levering, 6 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 190; Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. St. 327, 103 Atl. 49; Bowman v. Berkey, 262 Pa. St. 411, 105 Atl. 557.

West Virginia. Piercy v. Piercy, 5 W. Va. 199.

2 United States. United States v. Linn, 42 U. S. (1 How.) 104, 11 L. ed. 64.

Massachusetts. Warring v. Williams, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 322.

Michigan. Rawson v. Davidson, 49 Mich. 607, 14 N. W. 565.

New York. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Siefke, 144 N. Y. 354, 39 N. E. 358.

Pennsylvania. Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. St. 327. 103 Atl. 49; Bowman v. Berkey, 262 Pa. St. 411, 105 Atl. 557.

3 Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. St. 327, 103 Atl. 49.

Since the accidental mutilation of a seal without the fault of any of the parties to the instrument operated as a discharge thereof by the original common-law rule,4 the intentional act of a party in tearing off the seal operated as a material alteration.5