Sec 705

Whether an alteration by consent is simply a correcting of the original contract, being absorbed in it, or starts a new contract, may be a question of some moment, not merely in reference to the English stamp acts, but in reference to the statute of limitations, to the applicatory local law, and to the statute of frauds.7 The distinction that underlies the cases is this: "When the object of the alteration is simply to clear an obscurity, to fill a blank, to remove a blot, or to correct a mistake of figures, the original instrument is to be regarded as continuing in form, and the alterations as absorbed in it.1 In other words, when the object of the alteration is to bring out the real intention of the parties at the time the original contract was executed, then the original contract remains.2 But when the object of the alteration is to give effect to a change of intention subsequent to the execution of the original contract, then a new contract is started.3

So as to accidental alteration.

Vested rights not affected.

Alterations by consent, when expressing changes of intention, start a new contract.

1 Hutchins V. Scott, 2 M. & W. 814; U. S. V. Spalding, 2 Mason, 482; Broad-well V. Stiles, 3 Halst. 58; Marshall V. Gougler, 10 S. & R. 164; State V. Berg, 50 Ind. 496.

2 Sandilands in re, L. R. 6 C. P. 411; Argoll V. Cheney, Palm. 403; Bolton V. Carlisle, 2 H. Bl. 263.

3 Novelli V. Rossi, 2 B. & Ad. 757. 4 Wilkinson V. Johnson, 3 B. & C. 428.

5 Leake, 2d ed. 812; Bolton V. Bp. of Carlisle, 2 H. Bl. 259; West V. Steward, 14 M. & W. 47; Ward V. Lumley, 5 H. & N. 656.

6 Green V. Attenborongh, 3 H. & C. 468; Shaw ex parte, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 463.

7 As to novation, see infra, sec 852 et seq.

1 Jacob V. Hart, 6 M. & S. 142; Byrom V. Thompson, 11 A. & E. 31; Hamelin V. Brack, 9 Q. B. 306.

2 Sutton V. Toomer, 7 B. & C. 416; Jacob V. Hart, 6 M. & S. 142; Hamelin V. Bruck, 9 Q. B. 306; Robinson V. Touvay, 1 M. & S. 217; Byrom V. Thompson, 11 Ad. & E. 31; Bluck V.

Gompertz, 7 Ex. 862.

3 Bowman V. Nichol, 5 T. R. 537; Sutton V. Toomer, 7 B. & C. 416; Hill V. Patten, 8 East, 373; Knill V. Williams, 10 East, 431; Carr V. Petroleum Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 636; Briggs V. R. R., 31 Vt. 211; Vicary V. Moore, 2 Watts, 451. See infra, sec 852 et seq.