Sec 701

Policies of insurance have been held to be avoided by alterations, in the hands of the insured, changing the port of destination,3 or the time of sailing,4 or the description of the thing insured, so as to enlarge the insurer's liabilities.5 But the introduction of a harmless piece of surplusage, inserted by the insured from ignorance merely as indicating his sense of the instrument, has been held not to avoid.6

Sec 702

Even though the alteration be made by a stranger, it precludes the custodian from benefiting by the contract if the alteration were in his favor.7 "A party who has the custody of an instrument made for his benefit is bound to preserve it in its original state."8 The possession of an agent is in this respect to be regarded as the possession of the principal.9 But it is otherwise when the alteration was made without any connivance or inculpatory negligence on the part of the custodian, and where the true meaning can be shown by extrinsic proof.10 For the old rule, that an alteration by a stranger invalidates a document,11 no longer obtains in cases in which altered or defaced passages can be restored by extrinsic proof.1

Rule as to policies of insurance.

Alteration by stranger does not vitiate.

1 Tarleton V. Shingler, 7 C. B. 812.

2 Garrard V. Haddan, 67 Penn. St. 82; Zimmermann V. Rote, 75 Penn. St. 191; Brown V. Reed, 79 Penn. St. 370; see Bigelow on Estoppel, 3d ed. 530, 543 - 4. As to filling blanks, see supra, sec 185, 204.

3 Campbell V. Christie, 2 Stark. 64.

4 Fairlie V. Christie, 7 Taunt. 416.

5 Langhorn V. Cologan, 4 Taunt. 330.

6 Sanderson V. Symonds, 1 B. & B. 426.

7 Pigot's case, 11 Co. 27 b; Davidson V. Cooper, 13 M. & W. 343. 8 Per cur. Davidson V. Cooper, 13 ML.

& W. 352; Burchfield V. Moore, 3 E. & B. 687, adopted in Leake, 2d ed. 806.

9 Patterson V. Luckley, L. R. 10 Ex. 330; Bank of Hindustan V. Smith, 36 L. J. C. P. 241.

10 Henfree V. Bromley, 6 East, 309; Boston V. Benson, 12 Cush. 61; Nichols V. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192; Lewis V.

Payn, 8 Cow. 71; Jackson V. Malin, 15 Johns. 293; Rees V. Overbaugh, 6 Cow. 746; Lee V. Alexander, 9 B. Mon. 25; Davis V. Carlisle, 6 Ala. 707; Union Nat. Bk. V. Roberts, 45 Wis. 373.

11 Pigot's case, 11 Co. 27 b. See Davidson V. Cooper, 11 M. & W. 778.

Sec 703

What has been said applies to intentional alterations. An accidental alteration does not invalidate, for if it did, few old deeds would be valid, since there are few old deeds which are not affected by the lapse of time. Hence, that a seal has been accidentally torn off, or has lost its impress, does not invalidate;2 nor does the cancelling of an acceptance by mistake;3 nor the striking off an endorsement by mistake.4

Sec 704

An alteration of a deed, however disadvantageously it may affect the party making or permitting it in respect to his right to use it as an executory contract, does not divest any title already vested in conformity with its provisions.5 Rights which the deed established cannot be divested by its subsequent alteration; and property vested under an executed contract of sale cannot be recovered back because the contract has been subsequently tampered with. The contract, after alteration, cannot be enforced in favor of the party responsible for the alteration; but the mere fact of the alteration does not operate so as to impair his title to property passing to him by it before the alteration.6