made a distinction between an alteration affecting a sealed contract and one affecting other writings. As the common law required that the authority of an agent to execute a sealed instrument should be itself under seal,73 parol authorization by the obligor to make changes in the instrument after its delivery could not make such an instrument in its altered form the deed of the obligor.74 Nor could the deed be valid according to its original terms, under the early law, for the deed in that form was destroyed by the mere fact that it possessed no longer physical identity with the original obligation.75 It is plain, however, that the situation is one where justice demands 73 Supra, § 275. 74 Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 6 M. & W. 200; United States v. Nelson, 2 Brock. 64; Cross v. State Bank, 5 Ark. 525; Upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85, 10 Am. Rep. 266; Thomason v. Wilson, 127 Ga. 141, 56 S. E. 302; People v. Organ, 27 Ill. 27, 79 Am. Dec. 391; Simms v. Hervey, 19 Ia. 273; Ayres v. Probasco, 14 Kan. 175; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305; Basford v. Pearson, 9 Allen, 387, 85 Am. Dec. 764; Lindsley v. Lamb, 34 Mich. 509; Williams v. Crutcher, 6 Miss. 71, 35 Am. Dec. 422; Blacknall v. Parish, 6 Jones Eq. 70, 78 Am. Dec. 239; Graham v. Holt, 3 Ired. 300; Barden v. Southerland, 70 N. C. 528; Martin v. Buffalo, 121 N. C. 34, 36, 27 S. E. 995; Gilbert v. Anthony, 1 Yerg. 69, 24 Am. Dec. 439; Mosby v. State, 4 Sneed, 324; Vermont Accident Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 87 Vt. 394, 89 Atl. 480; Walla Walla Co. v. Ping; 1 Wash. T. 339. Cf. Lanum v. Harrington, 267 Ill. 57, 107 N. E. 826. If the alteration is made before delivery by an agent of the grantor authorized to deliver, the grantor is held bound by the alteration, if not broadly on the ground that parol authority is good, then on the principles of estoppel. Allen v. Withrow, 110 U. S. 119, 28 L. Ed. 90, 3 S. Ct. 517; Swartz v. Ballou, 47 Iowa, 188, 29 Am. Rep. 470; State v. Tripp, 113 Ia. 698, 704, 84 N. W. 546; Dolbeer v. Living ston, 100 Cal. 617, 35 Pac. 328; Wilhite v. Mason, 102 Kans. 461, 170 Pac. 814; Phelps v. Sullivan, 140 Mass. 36, 2 N. E. 121, 54 Am. Rep. 442; Field v. Stagg, 52 Mo. 534, 14 Am. Rep. 435; Thummel v. Holden, 149 Mo. 677, 684, 51 S. W. 404; Cribben v. Deal, 21 Oreg. 211, 27 Pac. 1046, 28 Am. St. Rep. 746; Van Etta v. Evenson, 28 Wis. 33, 9 Am. Rep. 486. Cf. Vaca Valley R. v. Mansfield, 84 Cal. 560, 24 Pac. 145. If a new delivery of the deed is made after the alteration, the deed is, of course, binding in its altered form. De Malarin v. United States, 1 Wall. 282, 17 L. Ed. 594; Prettyman v. Goodrich, 23 Ill. 330; Baker v. Baker, 239 Ill. 82, 87 N. E. 868; Styles v. Scotland, 22 N. Dak. 469, 134 N. W. 708; Vermont Accident Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 87 Vt. 394, 89 Atl. 480. But it has been held otherwise if the new delivery was made without knowledge of the alterations. Nesbitt v. Turner, 155 Pa. 429, 26 Atl. 750. If acknowledgment is necessary to the validity of the deed an acknowledgment before the alteration will not suffice. Waskey v. Chambers, 224 U. S. 564, 32 S. Ct. 597, 56 L. Ed. 885. 75 In McNab v. Young, 81 Ill. 11, it was held that the objection that an authorized insertion was made after execution could not be taken by one not claiming in the right of the grantor. that the obligee should be relieved from the consequences of such a destruction of the obligation, and in modern times wherever the instrument is unenforceable at law in its altered form, secondary evidence would be allowed to prove the original terms of the obligation, and if valid in that form it would be enforced,76 or if the Statute of Frauds did not prevent, equity should reform the deed to conform to the agreement of parties or should treat it as if reformed." § 1895. Contracts within the Statute of Frauds. Similar reasoning is applicable to alterations in an unsealed writing, made by the obligee under authority from the obligor, if the law requires a contract of the kind which has been altered to be in writing signed by the promisor.78 The obligee cannot be agent for the obligor to authenticate the writing, and the signature of the obligor attached to the original writing does not authenticate the changes. § 1896. Unsealed contracts―ratification. If the writing is unsealed, and the Statute of Frauds inapplicable, an authorized alteration is binding upon both parties, and the altered form of the contract, not the original form, will be enforced." In jurisdictions where the peculiar doctrines applicable to sealed contracts are no longer in force, this is true also of such contracts,80 and even in States which 76 Gunter v. Addy, 58 S. C. 178, 36 S. E. 553. "Burnside v. Wayman, 49 Mo. 356; McQuie v. Peay, 58 Mo. 56; Bryant v. Bank, 107 Tenn. 560, 64 S. W. 895. See also Mohlis v. Trauffler, 91 Ia. 751, 60 N. W. 521; Huffman v. Hatcher, 178 Ky. 8, 198 S. W. 236. 78 Upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85, 10 Am. Rep. 266; Ingram v. Little, 14 Ga. 173, 58 Am. Dec. 549 (overruled by Brown v. Colquitt, 73 Ga. 59, 54 Am. Rep. 867; Smith v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Assoc., 111 Ga. 737, 36 S. E. 957). But see Bluck v. Gompertz, 7 Ex. 862; Winslow v. Jones, 88 Ala. 496, 7 So 262. 79 Divide Canal &c. Co. v. Tenney, 57 Colo. 14, 139 Pac. 1110, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 346; Gardiner v. Harback, 21 Ill. 129; Grimsted v. Briggs, 4 Ia. 559; Stewart v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Mich. 348; Wilson v. Henderson, 17 Miss. 375, 48 Am. Dec. 716; Humphreys v. Guillow, 13 N. H. 385, 38 Am. Dec. 499; Taddiken v. Cantrell, 69 N. Y. 597, 25 Am. Rep. 253; Schmelz v. Rix, 95 Va. 509, 28 S. E. 890. See also cases in the following notes. 80 Dolbeer v. Livingston, 100 Cal. 617, 35 Pac. 328; Gardiner v. Harback, 21 Ill. 129; Swartz v. Ballou, 47 Ia. generally preserve the common-law rules governing sealed instruments, practical reasons have often led courts to uphold authorized or ratified alterations in such instruments.81 Ratification, subsequent to the alteration, has as full effect as authority originally granted,82 and ratification may be shown by any conduct from which assent can fairly be implied.83 188, 29 Am. Rep. 470; State v. Tripp, 113 La. 698, 704, 84 N. W. 546. 81 Speake v. United States, 9 Cranch, 28, 3 L. Ed. 645; Drury v. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, 33, 17 L. Ed. 780; Woodbury v. Allegheny, etc., Co., 72 Fed. 371; Bridgeport Bank v. New York, etc., R. Co., 30 Conn. 231; Inhabitants v. Huntress, 53 Me. 89, 87 Am. Dec. 535; State v. Young, 23 Minn. 551; Field v. Stagg, 52 Mo. 534, 14 Am. Rep. 435; Otis v. Browning, 59 Mo. App. 326; Cribben v. Deal, 21 Oreg. 211, 27 Pac. 1046, 28 Am. St. Rep. 746; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 6 R. I. 64, 75 Am. Dec. 681; Bank v. Hammond, 1 Rich. L. 281; Lamar v. Simpson, 1 Rich. Eq. 71, 42 Am. Dec. 345; Schintz v. McMahamy, 33 Wis. 299. 82 Speake v. United States, 9 Cranch, 28, 3 L. Ed. 645; Divide Canal, etc., Co. v. Tenney, 57 Colo. 14, 139 Pac. 1110, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 346; Goodspeed v. Cutler, 75 Ill. 534; Scott v. Bibo, 48 Ill. App. 657; Emerson v. Opp, 9 Ind. App. 581; Pelton v. Prescott, 13 Iowa, 567; Browning v. Gosnell, 91 Ia. 448, 59 N. W. 340; Holyfield v. Harrington, 84 Kan. 760, 115 Pac. 546, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 131; Fletcher v. Minneapolis Ins. Co., 80 Minn. 152, 83 N. W. 29; Workman v. Campbell, 57 Mo. 53; Humphreys v. Guillow, 13 N. H. 385, 38 Am. Dec. 499; Conable v. Smith, 61 Hun, 185, 22 S. E. 757; Wester v. Bailey, 118 N. C. 193, 24 S. E. 9; Styles v. Scotland, 22 N. Dak. 469, 134 N. W. 708; Barrett v. Effenburg, 29 Okl. 679, 119 Pac. 135; Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Oreg. 64, 40 Pac. 5, 43 Pac. 867; Jacobs v. Gilreath, 45 S. C. 46, 22 S. E. 757; Ratcliff v. Planters' Bank, 2 Sneed 425; Chezum v. McBride, 21 Wash. 558, 58 Pac. 1067. But it has been held otherwise as to a surety. Mulkey v. Long, 5 Idaho, 213, 47 Pac. 949; Warren v. Fant, 79 Ky. 1 (contra, Bell v. Mahin, 69 Ia. 408, 29 N. W. 331. See also Knoebel v. Kircher, 33 Ill. 308). Where the original alteration amounted to a forgery, it was held that ratification was not possible. Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 42 N. W. 467, 4 L. R. A. 196, 12 Am. St. Rep. 754; contra, Marks v. Schram, 109 Wis. 452, 84 N. W. 830. See also Ofenstein v. Bryan, 20 App. D. C. 1; Pannonia Building & Loan Assoc. v. West Side Trust Co. (N. J. L.), 108 Atl. 240; and supra, § 1145. 83 Barnsdall v. Boley, 119 Fed. 191; Montgomery v. Crossthwait, 90 Ala. 553, 8 So. 498, 12 L. R. A. 140, 24 Am. St. Rep. 832; Dickson v. Bamberger, 107 Ala. 293, 18 So. 290; Payne v. Long, 121 Ala. 385, 25 So. 780, 131 Ala. 438, 31 So. 77; Jackson v. Johnson, 67 Ga. 167; Yocum v. Smith, 63 Ill. 321, 14 Am. Rep. 120; Oswego v. Kellogg, 99 Ill. 590; Linington v. Strong, 107 Ill. 295; Canon v. Grigsby, 116 Ill. 15, 5 N. E. 362; Bell v. Mahin, 69 Ia. 408, 29 N. W. 331; Dover v. Robinson, 64 Me. 183; Ward v. Allen, 2 Met. 53, 35 Am. Dec. 387; Prouty v. Wilson, 123 Mass. 297; Stewart v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Mich. 348; Janney v. Goehringer, 52 Minn. 428, 54 N. W. 481; Board v. Gray, 61 Minn. 242, 63 N. W. 635; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo. 449; Reed v. Morton, 24 Neb. 760, 40 N. W. 282, 8 Am. St. Rep. 247; Perkins Windmill Co. v. Tillman, 55 Neb. 652, Silence may be enough. It has been well said, "The rule is just and supported by the authorities that, where a document has been altered and notice of such alteration is brought to the attention of the parties affected, it is their duty to disavow it at once, or within a reasonable time after learning thereof, or they are bound by the document as altered." 84 § 1897. Ratification of alteration of sealed instrument. Indeed ratification may be more effectual in the case of a sealed instrument than prior authority could have been, though ratification of an agent's execution of a sealed contract, like an original authority to an agent to execute such an instrument, must be under seal.85 A sealed instrument takes its validity from delivery, and the maker may adopt a signature or seal previously made and make them his own by delivering them as his. A redelivery, therefore, of a sealed instrument by the obligor after it has been altered will make it binding in its altered form. A prior consent to an alteration can hardly amount to a redelivery after the alteration, but if the maker himself assists or takes part in the alteration it would generally be easy to find a new delivery, and courts which, like those of England, hold that there is always a delivery when the maker of a deed indicates his assent to be bound by it as a completed instrument have no difficulty in finding delivery when the maker after an alteration has been made ratifies it.86 75 N. W. 1098; Wright v. Buck, 62 N. H. 656; Freile v. Rudiger, 89 N. J. Eq. 91, 104 Atl. 142; Conable v. Keeney, 61 Hun, 624, 16 N. Y. S. 719; Styles v. Scotland, 22 N. Dak. 469, 134 N. W. 708; Barrett v. Effenburg, 29 Okl. 679, 119 Pac. 135; Jacobs v. Gilreath, 45 S. C. 46, 22 S. E. 757; Matson v. Jarvis, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 376, 133 S. W. 941. Cf. State v. Churchill, 48 Ark. 426, 3 S. W. 352, 880; Benedict v. Miner, 58 Ill. 19; Fraker v. Cullum, 21 Kan. 555; Fraker v. Little, 24 Kan. 598, 36 Am. Rep. 262; German Bank v. Dunn, 62 Mo. 79; Kennedy v. Lancaster Bank, 18 Pa. 347; McDaniel v. Whitsett, 96 Tenn. 10, 33 S. W. 567. But if acknowledgment 87 or witnesses 88 are necessary to the validity of the deed, the assent of the parties, even though amounting to a redelivery, would be insufficient to make the alterations part of the deed. § 1898. Several obligors. If there are several obligors bound by an obligation, a material alteration of the obligation made with the assent of one or more parties will be binding upon those who assent,89 but will totally avoid the obligation of any who do not assent.90 The court will not restore such an obligation to its original form, so as to make sureties liable again on the obligation which they assumed.91 If there are entirely distinct obligations Waskey v. Chambers, 224 U. S. 564, 32 S. Ct. 597, 56 L. Ed. 885; Booker v. Stivender, 13 Rich. L. 85. 88 Drury v. Foster, 2 Wall. 24, 17 L. Ed. 780; Bryant v. Bank, 107 Tenn. 560, 567, 64 S. W. 895. See also Keene Mach. Co. v. Barratt, 100 Fed. 590, 40 C. C. A. 571. But the deed may be good as between the parties. Walkley v. Clarke, 107 Ia. 451, 78 N. W. 70. 89 Hochmark v. Richler, 16 Col. 263, 26 Pac. 818; Browning v. Gosnell, 91 Ia. 448, 59 N. W. 340; Rhoades v. Leach, 93 Ia. 337, 61 N. W. 988, 57 Am. St. Rep. 281; Brownell v. Winnie, 29 N. Y. 400, 409, 86 Am. Dec. 314; Diamond v. Inter-Ocean Co., 29 Okl. 323, 116 Pac. 773; Gould v. Gould (Wash.), 169 Pac. 324. This is subject to the qualifications previously made with reference to contracts under seal or within the Statute of Frauds. 90 Gardner v. Walsh, 5 E. & B. 83; Martin v. Thomas, 24 How. 315, 16 L. Ed. 689; Mundy v. Stevens, 61 Fed. 77, 9 C. C. A. 366; State v. Churchill, 48 Ark. 426, 3 S. W. 352, 880; State v. Smith, 9 Houst. 143; Gardiner v. Harback, 21 Ill. 129; State v. Van Pelt, 1 Ind. 304; Zimmerman v. Judah, 13 Ind. 286, 22 Ind. 388; Horn v. Newton Bank, 32 Kan. 518, 4 Pac. 1022; Tyler v. First Nat. Bank, 150 Ky. 515, 150 S. W. 665; Warring v. Williams, 8 Pick. 322; Greenfield Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196, 25 Am. Rep. 67; Board v. Gray, 61 Minn. 242, 63 N. W. 635; Love v. Shoape, 1 Miss. 508; Morrison v. Garth, 78 Mo. 434; State v. Findley, 101 Mo. 217, 14 S. W. 185; McMillan v. Hefferlin, 18 Mont. 385, 45 Pac. 548; Davis v. Bauer, 41 Ohio St. 257; Wills v. Wilson, 3 Oreg. 308; Rittenhouse v. Levering, 6 Watts & S. 190; Shiffer v. Mosier, 225 Pa. 552, 74 Atl. 426, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1155, 17 Ann. Cas. 756; Broughton v. Fuller, 9 Vt. 373; Bank of Ohio Valley v. Lockwood, 13 W. Va. 392, 31 Am. Rep. 768. See also Reese v. United States, 9 Wall. 13, 19 L. Ed. 541; United States v. Freel, 186 U. S. 309, 46 L. Ed. 1177, 22 S. Ct. 875; People v. Kneeland, 31 Cal. 288; Cotten v. Williams, 1 Fla. 42; Thompson v. Williams, 1 Fla. 56; Ames, Cas. Suretyship, 246, n. 91 Ruby v. Talbott, 5 N. Mex. 251, 21 Pac. 72; Fulmer v. Seitz, 68 Pa. 237, 8 Am. Rep. 172. Cf. Davis v. Shafer, 50 Fed. 764; Nickerson v. Swett, 135 Mass. 514. |