Four days after a receipt was given to an officer for goods at-
tached, B, a stranger to it, signed his name to it, the goods having



Chap. XI.] THE LAW OF ETWENCE. 245

been in the meantime carried off by one C. The original receipts-
man sued C in trespass, and, wishing to use B as a witness, cut
his name from the receipt, with liis consent, and that of the of&cer.
Held, that the receipt was not destroyed. Burrows v. Stoddard,
3 Conn. 163.
It seems, that where a, corporation issues stock certificates on a,
sheet containing also a printed blank for an assignment and power
of attorney to transfer, and a stockholder dates and fills up this
blank, except that he inserts no name for the assignee or attorney,
and then signs, seals, and delivers it, the purchaser may, at any
subsequent time, fill up these blanks, and use the instrument with
the same effect as if this had been done before its execution. The
Bridgeport Bank v. The New York & New Haven R. B. Co., 30
Conn. 273.
Such, at all events, is the law of New York, and such, therefore,
are the rights of a Connecticut citizen who receives such an assign-
ment and power here, when the transfer office is in New York.
The Bridgeport Bank v. The New York & New Haven B. R. Co.,
30 Conn. 275.
Any material alteration in a note or bill, made after it is com-
plete, without the consent of the parties, releases them. Mahaiwe
Bank v. Douglass, 31 Conn. 181.
