The party who did not make the alteration may, if he choose, ratify it.1 This principle has been applied to negotiable instruments such as promissory notes2 and to leases.3 If the party against whom liability is sought to be enforced has full knowledge of the facts, he may ratify an alteration of a simple contract by express acquiescence therein,4 as by express promise to pay the note as altered,5or by making part payment on the altered instrument,6 or by paying interest,7 or even by failure to disavow within a reasonable time after learning of the alterations.8

If the party against whom liability is sought to be enforced does not know of the alteration his conduct does not amount to a ratification.9 Thus an offer to renew and pay an altered note,10 or part payment of such altered note,11 or bringing an action upon the instrument in its altered form,12 is not ratification if made without knowledge of the fact of alteration.

Minnesota. Beck Electric Construction Co. v. National Contracting Co., - Minn. -, 173 N. W. 413.

"An immaterial alteration can not be made material simply by intent." Robinson v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 25 la. 430, 435.

"When men's acts can not be the subject of judicial investigation their motives can not be inquired into." Moye v. Herndon, 30 Miss. 110, 121.

1 United States. Smith v. United States, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 219, 17 L. ed. 788; Barnsdall v. Boley, 119 Fed. 191.

Alabama. Montgomery v. Cross-thwait, 90 Ala. 553, 12 L. R. A. 140, 8 So. 498.

Illinois. Goodspeed v. Cutler, 75 111. 534.

Kansas. Holyfield v. Harrington, 84 Kan. 760, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 131, 115 Pac. 546; Blair v. McQuary, 100 Kan. 203, 162 Pac. 1173, 164 Pac. 262.

Massachusetts. Prouty v. Wilson, 123 Mass. 297.

Nebraska. Nebraska v. Paxton, 65 Neb. 110, 90 N. W. 983.

New Jersey. Bodine v. Berg, 82 N. J. L. 662, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 65, 82 Atl. 901.

Montana. Smith v. Barnes, 51 Mont. 202, 149 Pac. 963.

South Carolina, Jacobs v. Gilreath, 45 S. Car. 46, 22 S. E. 757.

Wisconsin. Marks v. Schram, 109 Wis. 452, 84 N. W. 830.

2 Kansas. Holyfield v. Harrington, 84 Kan. 760, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 131, 115 Pac. 546.

Kentucky. Pulliam v. Withers, 38 Ky. (8 Dana) 98, 33 Am. Dec. 479.

North Carolina. Wester v. Bailey, 118 N. Car. 193, 24 S. E. 9.

Oregon. Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Or. 64, 43 Pac. 867.

Wisconsin. Marks v. Schram, 109 Wis. 452, 84 N. W. 830.

3 Barnsdall v. Boley, 119 Fed. 191.

4 Yocum v. Smith, 63 111. 321, 14 Am. Rep. 120; Wester v. Bailey, 118 N. Car. 193, 24 S. E. 9.

5 Goodspeed v. Cutler, 75 I1L 534; Marks v. Schram, 109 Wis. 452, 84 N. W. 830.

6 Johnson v. Johnson, 66 Mich. 52.5, 33 N. W. 413; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo. 449.

7 Prouty v. Wilson, 123 Mass. 297.

8 Landwerlen v. Wheeler, 106 Ind. 523, 5 N. E 888; Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Or. 64, 43 Pac. 867; Gray v. Williams, 91 Vt. Ill, 99 Atl. 735.

• Cutler v. Rose, 35 la. 456; Boalt v. Brown, 13 O. S. 364; McDaniel v. Whitsett, 96 Tenn. 10, 33 S. W. 567.

10 McDaniel v. Whitsett, 96 Tenn. 10, 33 S. W. 567.

Sealed instruments stand on a somewhat different footing. In some jurisdictions the old rule that authority to execute a sealed instrument must be under seal is still in force. Where this rule obtains it follows necessarily that a ratification not under seal is ineffective in case of an alteration in a sealed instrument.13 In other jurisdictions a sealed instrument may be executed or modified by authority not under seal. Where this rule obtains an oral ratification will validate an alteration in a sealed contract.14 An offer to pay a bond and request for an extension of time, with knowledge of the alteration,15 or claiming the benefit of the entire transaction with knowledge of the alteration,16 or taking collateral security against liability on such altered instrument,17 waives the right to treat such alteration as a ground of discharge.

Since co-makers are ordinarily not the agents of one another, ratification by one of several co-makers does not operate as ratification by those who do not know of such ratification and do not assent thereto.18