If the paper be forged and therefore a nullity, nothing whatever passed from the indorser to the indorsee, and therefore no demand of payment of the paper, or of acceptance where that is required, needs be shown in order to charge an indorser thereon who indorsed the paper after the forgery was committed.1 Since the forgery must be a material alteration, it follows that if it be made by a party to the paper the paper is destroyed;2 therefore where such a forgery appears, no question can arise upon the liability of any of the parties prior to the forgery. And this is true whether the forgery be of an indorsees name or of a material alteration in the paper. But if the alteration be made not fraudulently, or by a stranger, the holder may under some circumstances enforce the paper as it originally stood, by restoring it to its original condition;3 and blanks left in commercial paper which have been improperly filled up do not avoid the paper in the hands of a bona fide holder.4 In the case of alteration by a stranger and the paper restored to its original form, it is conceived that the rights of the various parties would remain what they were upon the unaltered paper. Paper void in its inception does not need a demand of payment in order that an indorser be held.5

6 Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265. But this cannot be safely relied upon as the law, and caution would suggest presentation of the certificate by the indorsee at the proper time.

7 Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265; Riddle v. First Nat Bank, 27 Fed. R, 503. But see Beardsley v. Webber, 104 Mich. 88. For the discussion of this question, see Sec. 161, ante.

1 Goddard v. Merchants' Bank, 4 N. Y. 147; Harrison v. Smith, 2 Willson Civ. Cas., Sec. 396. But see Collier v. Budd, 7 Ma 485.

2 Wood v. Steele, 6 Wall. 80; Mers-man v. Werges, 112 U. S. 139.

3 See the article Alteration of Instruments in 2 Am. & Eng. Enoyc. Law (2d ed.), 213, 261.

Stolen paper, if in negotiable form to pass by delivery, gives a good title to a bona fide holder, and the rights of such a holder and the requirements of him as to demand would be the same as those governing any other holder. If the paper was stolen not in such negotiable form, the transferee under the thief would get no title, just as he would not if he were not a holder for value and in good faith, or if he were a transferee after maturity and therefore put upon notice. In such case the true owner would proceed as if he had the paper, giving such guaranties as he would be required to give; but the rights of the parties as to a demand would be the same as if the paper had not been stolen, although the loss of the paper might, as in the case of paper actually lost, excuse some delay.6