If the alteration is made fraudulently no recovery can be had upon the original consideration;1 and the result of such fraudulent alteration is therefore to leave the innocent party in possession of the consideration, if he has received it, without any duty in return therefor, either contractual or quasi-contractual.2 Various reasons have been suggested for this rule which is admittedly harsh. The original cause of action is said to be lost by merger in the negotiable instrument which has been altered thereafter.3 The rule has been justified on the theory that one who has deliberately destroyed the evidence of the contract will not be permitted to recover the original consideration.4 It is also justified as a penalty for fraudulent conduct; 5 and the results reached under this theory go beyond those reached under the theory that the rule is based on the consequences of destroying evidence, so that it is not possible to enforce the contract although it was executed in duplicate, one of which is unaltered.6

5 Wilkes-Barre First National Bank v. Barnum, 160 Fed. 245; Pensacola State Bank v. Melton, 210 Fed. 57; Fairfield County National Bank v. Hammer, 89 Conn. 592, 95 Atl 31; Washington Finance Corporation v. Glass, 74 Wash. 653, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1043, 134 Pac. 480.

6 Wilkes-Barre First National Bank v. Barnum, 160 Fed. 245; Washington Finance Corporation v. Glass, 74 Wash. 653, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043, 134 Pac 480.

7 Pensacola State Bank v. Melton, 210 Fed. 57; Fairfield County National Bank v. Hammer, 89 Conn. 592, 95 Atl. 31.

1 England. Atkinson v. Hawdon, 2 Ad. & El. 628.

Canada. Bank v. Wharton, 27 N.

S. 67.

Illinois. Hayes v. Wagner, 220 111. 256, 77 N. E. 211.

Indian Territory. Hampton v. Mayers, 3 Ind. Terr. 65, 53 S. W. 483.

Kansas. Edington v. McLeod, 87

Kan. 426, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 230, 124 Pac. 163.

Massachusetts. Jeffrey v. Rosen-feld, 179 Mass. 506, 61 N. E. 49.

Minnesota. Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 12 Am. St. Rep. 754, 4 L. R. A. 196, 42 N. W. 467.

Missouri.. Bobb v. Taylor (Mo.), 184 S. W. 1028.

New Jersey. Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227, 10 Am. Rep. 232.

Ohio. Merrick v. Boury, 4 O. S. 60.

Oregon. Savage v. Savage, 36 Or. 268, 59 Pac. 461; Catching v. Ruby, 91 Or. 506, 178 Pac. 796.

Rhode Island. Keene v. Weeks, 19 R. I. 309, 33 Atl. 446.

Texas. Otto v. Halff, 89 Tex. 384, 59 Am. St. Rep. 56, 34 S. W. 910.

Wisconsin. Matteson v. Ellsworth, 33 Wis. 488, 14 Am. Rep. 766.

2 See Sec. 3091.

3 Edington v. McLeod, 87 Kan. 426, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 230, 124 Pac. 163.

4 Edington v. McLeod, 87 Kan. 426, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 230, 124 Pac 163.

1 Alabama. White v. Hass, 32 Ala. 430, 70 Am. Dec. 548.

Iowa. Woodworth v. Anderson, 63 la. 503, 19 N. W. 296; Maguire v. Eich-meier, 109 la. 301, 80 N. W. 395; Shea v. Cutler, 147 la. 366, 126 N. W. 366.

Kansas, Hocknell v. Sheley, 66 Kan. 357, 71 Pac 839.

Minnesota. Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Willyard, 46 Minn. 531, 24 Am. St. Rep. 250, 49 N. W. 300.

Mississippi Merchants' & Farmers' Bank v. Dent, 102 Miss. 455, 59 So. 805; Lauderdale Bank v. Cole, 111 Miss. 39, 71 So. 260.

Missouri. Whitmer v. Frye, 10 Mo. 348.

Nebraska. Walton Plow Co. v. Campbell, 35 Neb. 173, 16 L. R. A. 468, 52 N. W. 883.

Hew Hampshire. Martendale v. Fol-lett, 1 N. H. 95.

North Dakota. Bank of Decorah v. Laughlin, 4 N. D. 391, 61 N. W. 473.

Vermont. Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521.

Virginia. Newell v. Mayberry, 71 Va. (3 Leigh) 250, 23 Am. Dec. 261.

West Virginia. Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Watson, 58 W. Va. 189, 52 S. E. 515.

2 The decision of this question was avoided in Bodine v. Berg, 82 N. J. L. 662, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 65, 82 Atl. 901.

3 Woodworth v. Anderson, 63 la. 503, 19 N. W. 296.

4 Vogle v. Ripper, 34 111. 100, 85 Am. Dec. 298; Hocknell v. Sheley, 66 Kan. 357, 71 Pac. 839.

5 Hocknell v. Sheley, 66 Kan. 357, 71 Pac. 839.

"The law will not permit the holder to take the chances of gain by fraudulently altering the note, without risk of loss in case of detection." Walton Plow Co. v. Campbell, 35 Neb. 173, 16 L. R. A. 468, 52 N. W. 883.

It is said that this rule is "the most effective means of preserving the integrity" of written contracts. Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Watson, 58 W. Va. 189, 52 S. E. 515.

6 Koons v. St. Louis Car Co., 203 Mo. 227, 101 S. W. 49; Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Watson, 58 W. Va. 189, 52 S. E. 515.

For the opposite result on this particular question see Miller v. Yockey, 49 Colo. 303, 112 Pac. 772, and Lewis v. Payn, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 71, 18 Am. Dec. 427.

It seems to be held in some cases, however, that even in cases of fraudulent material alterations the maker can not avoid the note and at the same time retain the consideration received therefor. A note given in consideration of a deed to realty was subsequently altered fraudulently. The maker could avoid the entire transaction but he could not avoid the note and affirm the deed.7