
    Needles v. Shaffer et al.
    1. Promissory Note: alteration of: “order” changed to “Bearer.” The erasing of the word “order,” and inserting instead the word “hearer,” in a promissory note, after its execution, without the consent of the maker, is such a material alteration as will defeat a re- ■ covery on the note. Following Booth v. Pmvers, 56 N. Y., 22, and Union National Banlc v. Roberts, 45 Wis., 373.
    
      Appeal from Cass District Court.
    
    Thursday, December 7.
    Action upon a promissory note. The defendant for answer averred that the' note was materially altered after its execution. There was a trial without a jury, and judgment was rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals,
    
      L. L. Delano, for appellant.
    
      A. 8. CTmrchill, for appellees.
   Adams, J.

— -The alleged alteration consisted in erasing the word “order” and inserting the word “bearer.” That such an alteration is material was held in Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y., 22; and Union National Bank v. Roberts, 45 Wis., 373. We do not, indeed, understand the plaintiff as insisting that such alteration is not material. His contention is that the' undisputed evidence shows that the alteration was made before the notes were signed ;®and, if not, that the alteration was-assented to and ratified. But upon a separate reading of the' evidence we have all reached the conclusion that the plaintiff’s position cannot be sustained.

Affirmed.  