Sec 697

When there are several parties to a contract, by some of whom it has been already signed, alterations as to the obligations of parties who have not yet signed may be made prior to their signatures without affecting the liabilities of the parties who have already signed. Whenever the document is divisible as to the parties signing, the part relating to each party may for this purpose be considered an independent obligation.1 A document delivered as an escrow, also, may be altered so that the rights of prior non-consenting parties are not thereby affected;2 and a grantor who retains control of a deed, either actually or constructively, may be understood to reserve the right to alter, with notice to the other parties, the document, even though already signed by himself, at any time before it passes from him by delivery.1

Alterations made during negotiations do not invalidate.

which affects, or may affect, the contract which the instrument contains, or is evidence of. Sanderson V. Sy-monds, 1 B. & B. 426, and Aldous V. Cornwell, L. Rep. 3 Q. B. 573; 37 L. J. 201, Q. B., are clear authorities to show that an immaterial alteration will not do. My brother Lush, in his excellent judgment in Aldous V. Corn-well, ubi supra, says that the decision in Sanderson V. Symonds, ubi supra, was confined by the judges to policies of insurance. There are expressions in the judgments of the lord chief justice and Park, J., which support his view - and the instrument in question was a policy. But the language of the judges, I think, goes beyond this; and Richardson, J., a very great and most accurate lawyer, does not in any way qualify the generality of his language. Catton V. Simpson, 8 A. & E. 136, is to the same effect; and though that case was expressly overruled in Gardner V. Walsh, 25 L. T. 168; 5 E. & B. 83, it was so, not on the ground that an immaterial alteration avoided the instrument, but that the alteration in Catton V. Simpson, ubi supra, was material. In the sense in which the word ' material' has been used in all the cases I have been able to refer to, of which Master V. Miller, ubi supra, Burchfield V. Moore, 23 L. J. 143; 3 E. & B. 683, and Gardner V. Walsh, ubi supra, are only examples, the alteration has been held material because it varied, or attempted to vary, the contract. Here the alteration is nothing of the sort. It is material in the popular sense, because it interposes some difficulty in the way of the Bank of England detecting, or helping to detect, the original fraud, by making it harder to trace the notes or stop them at the bank. But this is wholly a collateral matter. An alteration in this popular and collateral sense has never yet been held to vitiate an instrument in the hands of an innocent holder; Sir John Holker admitted this in fact, but urged that the generality of the words in Master V. Miller, ubi supra, was wide enough to take in this case, and that it was wise so to extend them. I do not think so, and I must decline the invitation.".

1 Lewis V. Bingham, 4 B. & Ald. 672; Hall V. Chandless, 4 Bing. 123; Davidson V. Cooper, 11 M. & W. 802; West V. Steward, 14 M. & W. 47; Little V. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26; Bernstien V. Ricks, 20 La. An. 409; Blake V. Coleman, 22 Wis. 415.

2 West V. Steward, 14 M. & W. 49; Gudgen V. Bassett, 6 E. & B. 986. As to escrow, see supra, sec 679.