Any alteration in a deed, to render it void, must be a material
one; that is, one which causes the deed to speak a. language differ-
ent in legal effect from that which it spoke originally. Murray v.
KUnzing, 64 Conn. 85.
It seems, that a material alteration in a written instrument
made by a, stranger will not vitiate it. Nichols v. Johnson, 10
Conn. 197.
If the owner of goods sold at auction, in suing for the price, re-
lies on the auctioneer's memorandum to prove the sale, and it ap-
pears that a material alteration has been made in the memorandum
since its execution, there is no presumption that this was made by
the plaintiff, rather than by a stranger. Nichols v. Johnson, 10
Conn. 197, 198.
An auctioneer's entry of a sale was followed by these words:
"Auet. 6th March, 1826." Subsequently there was prefixed to the
entry the words: "sales at auction, 6th March, 1826." Held, that
the alteration was an immaterial one. Nichols v. Johnson, 10
Conn. 198.
A deed of land executed and delivered to E W was subsequently
altered by the consent of the parties by adding the word " junior "
after his name, and then redelivered. There was another and older
E W in the same town. Held, that the alteration was immaterial,
and that the deed was, therefore, unimpaired by it. Coit v. Stark-
weather, 8 Conn. 293.
