If any custom prevails among banks of regarding erasures of
printed matter in negotiable paper, as no evidence of an unauthor-
ized alteration, when similar erasures of written matter would be
so, it is not so ancient or general as to affect any who have not
known of it or acquiesced in it. Mahaiwe Bank v. Douglass, 31
Conn. 182.
A material alteration was made in a note by the payee in favor
of the maker, and in order to avoid a supposed illegality in its
provisions. Held, that equity would compel the payment of the
note altered. Little v. Fowler, 1 Eoot, 94.
Massachusetts.
(First paragraph.) Osgood v. Stevenson, 143 Mass. 399; War-
ring V. Williams, S Pick. 322; Wheelock v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 165;
Davis V. Jenney, 1 Mete. 221; Boston v. Benson, 12 Cush. 61;
Agawam Bank v. Sears, 4 Gray, 95; Doane v. Eldridge, 16 Gray,
255; Fay v. Smith, 1 Allen, 477; Stoddard v. Penniman, 108 Mass.
366; Draper v. Wood, 112 Mass. 315; Stoddard v. Penniman, 113
Mass. 386; Cape Ann Nat. Bank v. Burns, 129 Mass. 596.
246 A DIGEST OP [Part II.
Many authorities hold that there is no presumption as to when
alterations are made, but that the whole question is for the jury, and
the plaintiff must establish his case and show that the instrument
in question is the defendant's. Wilde v. Armsby, 6 Gush. 314, 318;
Simpson v. Davis, 119 Mass. 269, 270, 20 Am. Rep. 324.
Immaterial alterations. — Church v. Foiole, 142 Mass. 12; Brown
V. Pinkham, 18 Pick. 172; Vose v. Dolan, 108 Mass. 155, 11 Am.
Rep. 333; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307; Smith v. Crooker, 5 Mass.
