Opinion of the Court by
Justice Smith.
In this case it is clear from the evidence that the plaintiff in the court below made an alteration in the amount of the joint note signed by Pankey and Eoach, increasing the sum from thirty-seven dollars to forty-four dollars and fifty cents, without the consent of Pankey. This rendered the note itself void ; and on it no recovery could be had. The note is sued on as a lost note, and until it was produced, or evidence offered to prove the alteration, the defendant in the court below could not be supposed to be in a condition to plead non est factum. The offer to do so so soon as the evidence disclosed the fraud, was sufficiently in time, as the proceedings were not in writing, being an appeal from the justice’s decision to the circuit court, and therefore the court erred in not permitting the plea to be received.
But upon the whole evidence, as disclosed by the bill of exceptions, without even the tender of the plea, we are of the opinon that the judgment ought, on the ground of the alteration and fraud,.to have been for the defendant. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed with costs.
Judgment reversed.
In Gilleett v. Sweat, 1 Gilm., 489, the court say: "We need not cite authorities to prove that any material alteration of a note by which any of the parties to it would be prejudiced, or where its terms are changed, so as to alter the relative liabilities of the parties, will destroy the legal effect of the entire instrument.”
The rule is well established in England, and in many of the courts of this country, that it is incumbent upon the party offering in evidence an instrument which appears to have been altered (as by interlineation,) to explain such alteration; and in the absence of all evidence, either from the appearance of the instrument itself, or otherwise, to show when the alteration was made, it must be presumed to have been subsequent to the execution of the instrument. “And such,” says the court, “ we believe to be the true rule.” Though the alteration may be explained by the appearance of the instrument upon inspection, and does not necessarily require proof dehors the instrument. Walters v. Short, 5 Gilm., 258. Montag v. Linn, 23 Ill., 551.
The party receiving a paper interlined in a material part, should see that the interlineation is noted in the attestation. Such interlineations must be explained by those who claim the benefit of them. Hodge v. Gilman et al., 20 Ill., 437.
An obligee may make immaterial alterations in a bond, if they are consistent with the true contract of the parties. Reed v. Kemp, 16 Ill., 445.
Adding the words “ten dollars and fifty interest” immediately after the words “ value received,” in a promissory note, is not a material alteration ; such words would be construed to mean that a portion of the value received by the makers, consisted of ten dollars and fifty cents of interest. Gardiner v. Harback, 21 Ill., 129.