Non-negotiable instrument. In order to prevent tampering with written instruments,1 the courts have laid down the rule that a material alteration avoids the written contract.2

1 Croswell v. Labree, 81 Me. 44, 10 Am. St. Rep. 238, 16 Atl. 331; Long v. Mason, 84 N. Car. 15.

2 Maguire v. Eichraeier, 109 la. 301, 80 N. W. 305; Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Willyard, 46 Minn. 531, 24 Am. St. Rep. 250, 49 N. W. 300.

3 Keene v. Weeks & Aldrich, 19 R. I. 309, 33 Atl. 446.

4 Cass County v. Bank, 9 N. D. 263, 83 N. W. 12.

5 Wolferman v. Bell, 6 Wash. 84, 36 Am. St. Rep. 126, 32 Pac. 1017.

1 Wood v. Steele, 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 80, 18 L. ed. 725; Ruby v. Talbott, 6 N. M. 251, 3 L. R. A. 724, 21 Pac. 72.

2 Wood v. Steele, 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 80, 18 L. ed. 725.

Alabama. Anderson v. Bellenger, 87 Ala. 334, 13 Am. St. Rep. 46, 4 L. R. A. 680, 6 So. 82; Montgomery v. Croasthwait, 90 Ala. 553, 24 Am. St. Rep. 832, 12 L. R. A. 140, 8 So. 498; Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385, 25 So. 780.

Arkansas. Robertson v. Southwestern Co., 136 Ark. 417, 206 S. W. 755.

Illinois. Keller v. State Bank, -111. -, 127 N. E. 94.

Indiana. Palmer v. Poor, 121 Ind. 135, 6 L. R. A. 469, 22 N. E. 984.

Iowa. Sherman v. Smith, - la. -, 169 N. W. 216.

Kansas. New York Life Insurance Co. v. Martindale, 75 Kan. 142, 121 Am. St. Rep. 362, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1045, 88 Pac. 559; Kurth v. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank, 77 Kan. 475, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 612, 94 Pac. 798; Edington v. McLeod, 87 Kan. 426, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 230, 124 Pac. 163; Hurt v. Stout, 105 Kan. 54, 181 Pac 623.

Louisiana. Dreyfuss v. Process Oil & Fuel Co., 142 La. 564, 77 So. 283.

Michigan. Stevens v. Venema, 202 Mich. 232, L. R. A. 1918F, 1145, 168 N. W. 531.

Minnesota. O. N. Bull Remedy Co. v. Clark, 109 Minn. 396, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 519, 124 N. W. 20.

Missouri. Haskell v. Champion, 30 Mo. 136; Frazier v. Crook, - Mo. -, 204 S. W. 392; Bacon v. Theiss, - Mo. -, 208 S. W. 254; Highland Investment Co. v. Kansas City Computing Scales Co., 277 Mo. 365, 209 S. W. 895.

Nebraska. Ball v. Beaumont, 66 Neb. 56, 92 N. W. 170.

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

Any material alteration of an instrument releases a party to such instrument who does not consent to such alteration, no matter how many other parties have consented thereto.3 The act of one of the makers in adding seals to the names of the other makers,4 or in changing the date of the instrument,5 destroys the liability of the remaining makers who did not assent. A material alteration of a contract,6 though with the consent of the other parties thereto,7

Ohio. Patterson v. McNeely, 16 O. S. 348; Newman v. King, 54 O. S. 273, 56 Am. St. Rep. 705, 35 L. R. A. 471, 43 N. E. 683.

Oklahoma. Cox v. Kirkwood, 59 Okla. 183, 158 Pac. 930; Wayne County National Bank v. Kneeland, -Okla. -, 161 Pac. 193; Voris v. Bird-sail, - Okla. -, 162 Pac. 951; First National Bank v. Ketchum, - Okla. -, L. R A. 1918F, 958, 172 Pac. 81; Bank of Commerce v. Webster, -Okla. -, L. R. A. 1918F, 696, 172 Pac. 942.

Pennsylvania. Swank v. Kaufman, 255 Pa. St. 316, L. R. A. 1917D, 826, 99 Atl. 1000; Bowman v. Berkey, 259 Pa. St. 327, 103 Atl. 49; Bowman v. Berkey, 202 Pa. St. 411, 105 Atl. 557.

South Carolina. White v. Harris, 69 S. Car. 65, 104 Am. St. Rep. 701, 43 S. E. 41; First National Bank v. Wood, 109 S. Car. 70, L. R. A. 1918D, 1061, 95 S. E. 140.

South Dakota. Rochford v. McGee, 16 S. D. 606, 102 Am. St. Rep. 719, 61 L. R. A. 335, 94 N. W. 695; Hol-bart v. Lauritson, 34 S. D. 267, 53 L. R. A. (N.S.) 166, 148 N. W. 19.

Vermont. Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 346, 89 Atl.

Virginia. Consumers' Ice Co. v. Jennings, 100 Va. 719, 42 S. E. 879.

Washington. Washington Finance Corporation v. Glass, 74 Wash. 653, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043, 134 Pac. 480.

3 Alabama. Green v. Sneed, 101 Ala. 205. 46 Am. St. Rep. 119, 13 So. 277.

Iowa. Hall v. McHenry, 19 la. 521, 87 Am. Dec. 451.

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

Massachusetts. Fay v. Smith, 83 Mass. (1 All.) 477, 79 Am. Dec. 752.

Missouri. Frazier v. Crook, - Mo. -, 204 S. W. 392.

Ohio. Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 O. S. 529; Harsh v. Klepper, 28 O. S. 200.

Pennsylvania. Shiffer v. Mosier, 225 Pa. St. 552, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1155, 74 Atl. 426.

South Carolina. First National Bank v. Wood, 109 S. Car. 70, L. R. A. 1918D, 1061, 95 S. E. 140.

Vermont. Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 346, 89 Atl. 639.

If the alteration is made without A's consent after A has executed the instrument, in order to induce B to execute it, no contract exists. Dreyfuss v. Process Oil & Fuel Co., 142 La. 564, 77 So. 283.

4 Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 O. S. 529.

5 Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 346, 89 Atl. 639.

6 Carrique v. Beaty, 24 Ont. App. 302; Robertson v. Southwestern Co., 136 Ark. 417, 206 S. W. 755; State Solicitors' Co. v. Savage, 39 Fla. 703, 23 So. 413; First National Bank v. Wood, 109 S. Car. 70, L. R. A. 1918D, 1061, 95 S. E. 140.

7 United States. United States Glass Co. v. Bottle Co., 81 Fed. 993.

Kansas. New York Life Insurance Co. v. Martindale, 75 Kan. 142, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1045, 88 Pac. 559.

releases a surety thereon. It is, however, error to restrict the effect of a material alteration as discharge to the case of sureties.8

The rule that a material alteration discharges the instrument as to those who do not assent thereto, applies, in most jurisdictions, to innocent alterations as well as to fraudulent alterations.9

It makes no difference whether the change makes the contract less favorable or more favorable to the party who does not assent to the alteration.10 An alteration in the date of a note, so that less interest is due thereon than was due on the instrument as originally executed;11 or an alteration which reduces the amount of the principal due on the note;12 or an alteration which reduces the rate of interest below that which the original instrument would have borne legally,13 are all material, and discharge the party who did not assent thereto.

Ohio. Thompson v. Massie, 41 O. 8. 307.

Pennsylvania. Swank v. Kaufman, 255 Pa. St. 316, L. R. A. 1917D, 826, 99 Atl. 1000.

South Carolina. First National Bank v. Wood, 109 S. Car. 70, L. R. A. 1918D, 1061, 95 S. E. 140.

8 Ball v. Beaumont, 66 Neb. 56, 92 N. W. 170; Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513, 60 Pac. 270.

9 Alabama. Green v. Sneed, 101 Ala. 205, 46 Am. St. Rep. 119, 13 So. 277.

Iowa. Hall v. McHenry, 19 la. 521, 87 Am Dec. 451.

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

Massachusetts. Fay v. Smith, 83 Mass. (1 All) 477, 79 Am. Dec. 752.

Ohio. Harsh v. Klepper, 28 O. S. 200.

Oklahoma. Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 513, 60 Pac. 270.

Vermont. Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 61 L. R A. (N.S.) 346, 89 Atl. 639.

10 Alabama. Brown v. Johnson, 127 Ala. 292, 85 Am. St. Rep. 134, 51 L. R. A. 403, 28 So. 579.

Indiana. Weir Plow Co. v. Walm-sley, 110 Ind. 242, 11 N. E. 232.

Illinois. Keller v. State Bank, -I1L -, 127 N. E. 94.

Kansas. New York Life .Ins. Co. v. Martindale, 75 Kan. 142, 121 Am. St. Rep. 362, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1045, 88 Pac. 559.

Massachusetts. Wheelock v. Freeman, 30 Maes. (13 Pick.) 165, 23 Am. Dec. 674.

New Hampshire. Humphreys v. Guillow, 13 N. H. 385, 38 Am. Dec. 499.

Oklahoma. Voris v. Robbins, 52 Okla. 671, 153 Pac. 120.

Vermont. Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 346, 89 Atl. 639; Gray v. Williams, 91 Vt. 111, 99 Atl. 735.

Washington. Washington Finance Corporation v. Glass, 74 Wash. 653, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043, 134 Pac. 480.

Wisconsin. Hecht v. Shenners, 126 Wis. 27, 105 N. W. 309.

11 Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Stephenson, 87 Vt. 433, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 346, 89 Atl. 639.

12 Highland Investment Co. v. Kansas City Computing Scales Co., 277 Mo. 365,209 S.W.895; Washington Finance Corporation v. Glass, 74 Wash. 653, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043, 134 Pac. 480.

An alteration of a check, reducing the amount thereof, avoids it. Keller v. State Bank, - III. --, 127 N. E. 94.

A material alteration avoids a contract not only as to the party making it, but as to an innocent transferee, such as a bona fide assignee who is not an indorsee.14

A material alteration operates as a discharge of a lease,15 at least if such alteration is made after one of the parties has signed or has executed it, and before the adversary party executes it.16 The alteration of a mortgage after execution seems to operate as a discharge thereof.17 Whether the alteration of a deed operates to divest the title of the grantee, or whether such alteration merely affects the executory covenants contained in the deed, is a question which is outside of contract law.18

In some jurisdictions, however, an innocent material alteration does not avoid the contract.19

In any event, the material alteration can not be regarded as a part of the contract.20 Whatever the effect the addition of a memorandum or indorsement upon an instrument may have upon the validity thereof, it can not be regarded as a part of such instrument so as to show consideration upon its face.21

13 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Martin-dale, 75 Kan. 142, 121 Am. St. Rep. 362, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1045, 88 Pac.

659.

14 Burch v. Daniel, 101 Ga. 228, 28 S. E. 622; Searles v. Seipp, 6 S. D. 472, 61 N. W. 804.

15 Dreyfuss v. Process Oil & Fuel Co., 142 La. 564, 77 So. 283.

16 Dreyfuss v. Process Oil & Fuel Co., 142 La. 564, 77 So. 283.

17 Frazier v. Crook, - Mo. -, 204

S. W. 392.

18 See on this subject:

United States. Eadie v. Chambers, 172 Fed. 73, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 879 [reversed in Waskey v. Chambers, 224 U. S. 564, 56 L. ed. 885, on the theory that the deed, having but one witness and being altered after acknowledgment, was not entitled to registration].

Kansas. Hurt v. Stout, 105 Kan. 54,

181 Pac. 623. Kentucky. Huffman v. Hatcher, 178

Ky. 8, L. R. A. 1918B, 484, 138 S. W. 236.

Massachusetts. Carr v. Frye, 225 Mass. 531, L. R. A. 1917E, 814, 114 N. E. 745.

Missouri. Frazier v. Crook, - Mo. -, 204 S. W. 392.

19 Croswell v. Labree, 81 Me. 44, 10 Am. St. Rep. 238, 16 Atl. 331; James v. Tilton, 183 Mass. 275, 67 N. E. 326; Wolferman v. Bell, 6 Wash. 84, 36 Am. St. Rep. 126, 32 Pac. 1017.

So in Georgia by statute. Miller v. Slade, 116 Ga. 772, 43 S. E. 69; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334, 40 S. E. 227.

20 Jones v. Wixom, - Wis. -, 174 N. W. 895.

21 Jones v. Wixom, - Wis. -, 174 N. W. 895.

In jurisdictions in which a change of a written instrument by one of the parties, so as to make it conform to the actual agreement between the parties, operates as an alteration if the adversary party does not assent thereto (see Sec. 3091), the act of the payee in changing the terms of an instrument to make it conform to the actual agreement between the parties discharges the instrument, although he acta without fraudulent intent. Edington v. McLeod, 87 Kan. 426, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 230, 124 Pac. 163. 1 England. Master v. Miller, 1 Anstr.