The English courts seem to have receded from their original rule1 so far that spoliation of a sealed instrument by one who is not a party thereto is regarded as having no legal effect,2 at least if the modification is immaterial.3

The great weight of authority in the United States has taken the position that a spoliation by a stranger to the contract has no legal effect. On the one hand, it does not avoid the contract,4 and, on the other hand, the original contract is to be enforced as if no spoliation had been made.5 The unauthorized addition of a seal by a stranger to the contract does not affect its validity.6 If a maker of a negotiable note which is not under seal adds seals to the names of the other makers without their authority and before he delivers the note to the payee, such addition of seals does not discharge the makers who did not assent thereto;7 although they are not liable, as on a sealed instrument.8 An unauthorized change in the name of the grantee after the deed has been delivered does not divest the title of the original grantee.9

9 Pullen v. Shaw, 14 N. Oar. 238.

10 Henfree v. Bromley, 6 East 309; Trew v. Burton, 1 Cromp. & M. 533.

1 See Sec. 3119.

2 Waugh v. Bussell, 5 Taunt. 707.

3Waugh v. Bussell, 5 Taunt. 707.

4 United States. United States v. Spalding, 2 Mason (U. S.) 482; Clyde Steamship Co. v. Whaley, 231 Fed. 76, L. R. A. 1910F, 289.

Alabama. Forbes v. Taylor, 139 Ala. 286, 35 So. 855.

Arkansas. Andrews v. Calloway, 50 Ark. 358, 7 S. W. 449.

California. Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 46, 39 L. R. A. 697, 52 Pac. 115.

Connecticut. Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192; Aetna National Bank ▼. Winchester, 43 Conn. 391.

Florida. Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla 244, 15 So. 770.

Georgia. Probasco v. Shaw, 144 Ga 416, 87 S. E. 466.

Illinois. Paterson v. Higgins, 58 III App. 268; Condict v. Flower, 106 III 105; Pry v. Pry, 109 111. 466; Lanum v. Patterson, 143 III. App. 244; Fry v. Jenkins, 173 111. App. 486.

Indiana. Piersol v. Grimes, 30 Ind. 129, 95 Am. Dec. 673; Cochran v. Ne-beker, 48 Ind. 459.

Kentucky. Lee v. Alexander, 48 Ky. (9 B. Mon.) 25, 48 Am. Dec. 412.

Massachusetts. Chessman v. Whit-temore, 40 Mas*. (23 Pick.) 231.

Michigan. White Sewing Machine Co. v. Dakin, SO Mich. 5S1, 13 L. R. A. 313, 49 X. W. 583.

Minnesota. Ames v. Brown, 2*2 Minn. 257.

Mississippi. Ferguson v. White (Miss.), 18 So. 124; Bridges v. Winters, 42 Miss. 135, 2 Am. Rep. 598, 97 Am. Dec. 443.

Missouri. Lubbering v. Kohlbrecher, 22 Mo. 596; Moore v. Ivers, 83 Mo. 29; State, ex rel. Pemiscot County, v. Scott, 104 Mo. 26, 15 S. W. 987, 17 S. W. 11.

Nebraska. Bingham v. Shadlc, 45 Neb. 82, 63 N. W. 143; Schlageck v. Widholm, 59 Neb.541, 81 X. W. 448.

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

New York. Rees v. Overbaugh, 6 Cow. (X. Y.) 746; Jackson v. Malin, 15 Johns. (X. Y.) 293; Van Brunt v. Eoff, 35 Barb. (X. Y.) 501; Casoni v. Jerome, 58 N. Y. 315; Martin v. Tradesmen's Insurance Co., 101 N. Y. 498, 5 X. E. 338; Solon v. Williams-burgh Savings Bank, 114 X. Y. 122, 21 X. E. 16S; Gleason v. Hamilton, 138 X. Y. 353, 21 L. R. A. 210, 34 X. E. 283.

Ohio. Tarbill v. Mill Works, 1 Ohio C. D. 643; Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 O. S. 529; Thompson v. Massie, 41 O. S.

307.

Pennsylvania. Robertson v. Hay, 91 Pa. St. 242; Miller v. Stark, 148 Pa. St. 164, 23 Atl. 1058; Bowman v. Ber-key, 259 Pa. St. 327, 103 Atl. 49.

South Carolina. White v. Harris, 69

S. Car. 65, 104 Am. St. Rep. 791, 48 S. E. 41.

Tennessee. Boyd v. McConnell, 29 Tenn. (10 Humph.) 68; Deering Harvester Co. v. White, 110 Tenn. 132, 72 S. W. 902.

Vermont. Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521; Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 76 Vt. 22, 104 Am. St. Rep. 915, 56 Atl. 87.

Washington. Murray v. Peterson, 6 Wash. 418, 33 Pac. 969; Edwards v. Thompson, 99 Wash. 188, 169 Pac. 327; Gould v. Gould, 99 Wash. 204, 169 Pac 324.

West Virginia. Yeager v. Musgrave, 28 W. Va. 90.

Wisconsin. Union National Bank v. Roberts, 45 Wis. 373; Fuller v. Green, 64 Wis. 159, 54 Am. Rep. 600, 24 N. W. 907.

5 United States. United States v. Spalding, 2 Mason (U. S.) 482; Clyde Steamship Co. v. Whaley, 231 Fed. 76, L. R. A. 1916F, 289.

Alabama. Forbes v. Taylor, 139 Ala. 286, 35 So. 855.

Arkansas. Andrews v. Calloway, 50 Ark. 358, 7 S. W. 449.

California. Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 46, 39 L. R. A. 697, 52 Pac. 115.

Connecticut. Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192; Aetna National Bank v. Winchester, 43 Conn. 391.

Florida. Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla. 244, 15 So. 770.

Illinois. Condict v. Flower, 106 111. 105; Pry v. Pry, 109 111. 466; Peter-son v. Higgins, 58 111. App. 268; La-num v. Patterson, 143 111. App. 244; Fry v. Jenkins, 173 111. App. 486.

Indiana. Piersol v. Grimes, 30 Ind. 129, 95 Am. Dec. 673; Cochran v. Ne-beker, 48 Ind. 459.

Kentucky. Lee v. Alexander, 48 Ky. (9 B. Mon.) 25, 48 Am. Dec. 412.

The practical difficulties incident to any reliance on secondary evidence, when the primary evidence is destroyed, are occasionally encountered where the spoliation has been thorough.

Massachusetts. Chessman v. Whit-temore, 40 Mass. (23 Pick.) 231.

Michigan. White Sewing Machine Co. v. Dakin, 86 Mich. 581, 13 L. R. A. 313, 49 N. W. 583.

Minnesota. Ames v. Brown, 22 Minn. 257.

Mississippi. Ferguson v. White (Miss.), 18 So. 124; Bridges v. Winters, 42 Miss. 135, 2 Am. Rep. 598, 97 Am. Dec. 443.

Missouri. Lubbering v. Kohlbrecher, 22 Mo. 596; Moore v. Ivers, 83 Mo. 29; State, ex rel. Pemiscot County, v. Scott, 104 Mo. 26, 15 S. W. 987, 17 S. W. 11.

Nebraska. Bingham v. Shadle, 45 Neb. 82, 63 N. W. 143; Schlageck v. Widholm, 59 Neb. 541, 81 N. W. 448.

New Jersey. Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227, 10 Am. Rep. 232; Pees v. Over-baugh, 6 Cow. (X. Y.) 740; Jackson v. Malin, 15 Johns. (X. Y.) 293; Van Brunt v. Eoft, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 501; Casoni v. Jerome, 58 X. Y. 315; Martin v. Tradesmen's Insurance Co., 101 N. Y. 498, 5 N. E. 338; Solon v. Wil-liamsburgh Savings Bank, 114 N. Y. 122, 21 N. E. 168; Gleason v. Hamilton, 138 N. Y. 353, 21 L. R. A. 210, 34 N. E. 283.

Ohio. Tarbill v. Richmond City Mill Works, 1 Ohio C. D. 643; Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 O. S. 529.

Pennsylvania. Robertson v. Hay, 91 Pa. St. 242; Miller v. Stark, 148 Pa. St. 164, 23 Atl. 1058; Bowman v. Ber-key, 259 Pa. St. 327, 103 Atl. 49.

South Carolina. White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, 104 Am. St. Rep. 791, 48 S. E. 41.

Tennessee. Boyd v. McConnell, 29 Tenn. (10 Humph.) 68; Deering Harvester Co. v. White, 110 Tenn. 132, 72 S. W. 962.

Vermont. Bigelow v. Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521; Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Allen, 76 Vt. 22, 104 Am. St. Rep. 915, 56 Atl. 87.

Washington. Murray v. Peterson, (J Wash. 418, 33 Pac. 969; Edwards v. Thompson, 99 Wash. 183, 169 Pac. 327.

West Virginia. Yeager v. Musgrave, 28 W. Va. 90.

Wisconsin. Union National Bank v. Roberts, 45 Wis. 373.

6 Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. St. 327, l63 Atl. 49.

7 Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 O. S. 5:29.

8 Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 O. S. 529. 9 Carr v. Frye, 225 Mass. 531, L. R.

A. 1917E, 814, 114 N. E. 745.