Since marginal figures are no part of a note1 an alteration in such marginal figures,2 as changing them from one thousand, five hundred dollars to one thousand dollars,3 or from six hundred dollars to six hundred and fifty dollars,4 is not a material alteration.

25 Bank v. Miner, 0 Colo. App. 361, 48 Pac. 837.

26 Suillivan v. Realty Co., 142 Cal. 201, 75 Pac. 767.

27 Young v. Borzone, 26 Wash. 4, 66 Pac. 136.

28 Gunter v. Addy, 58 S. Car. 178, 36 S. E. 553.

29 Rowe v. Bowman, 183 Mass. 488, 67 N. E. 636.

30 Davin v. Isman, 228 N. Y. 1, 126 N. E. 257.

1 Merritt v. Boyden, 101 111. 136, 85 Am. St. Rep. 246, 60 N. E. 907; Smith V. Smith, 1 R. I. 308, 53 Am. Dec. 652; Lombardo v. Lombardini, 57 Wash. 352, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 515, 106 Pac. 907.

2 Alabama. Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52, 32 So. 1006.

Iowa. Horton v. Horton, 71 la. 448, 32 N. W. 452.

Texas. Chamberlain v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 707.

Washington. Lombardo v. Lombardini, 57 Wash. 352, 32 L. R. A. (N..S ) 515, 106 Pac. 007.

Wisconsin. Johnston Harvester Co. v. McLean, 57 Wis. 258, 46 Am. Rep. 39, 15 N. W. 177.

3 Prim v. Hammel, 134 Ala. 652, 92 Am. St. Rep. 52, 32 So. 1006.

4 Schryver v. Hawks, 22 O. S. 308.

Since printed provisions yield to written provisions when the two are inconsistent,5 the alteration of the printed figures in the date of an instrument, so as to make it correspond to the written figures in the body of the instrument, is not a material alteration.6