16 ÏEDEBÀIi BSPOBTES, �Coï, Trustee, ». Palmeb and othera. �{Circuit Court, D. Minnesota. June, 1880.) �X, MoKTGAGE — Intbblineatioîî — BuRDEN OF Pkoop. — " If the Interlinea- tion is in itself suspicious, as, if it appears to be contrary to the proba- ble meaning of the instrument as it stood before the insertion of the interlined words! orif itiain ahandwriting different from the body of the instrument, or appears to have been written with dilïerent ink,— in ail such cases, if the court considers the interlineation suspicious on its face, the presumption will be that it was an unauthorized alter- ation after execution. On the other harid, if the interlineation ap- pears in the same handwriting with the original instrument, and bearg no evidence on its face of having been made subsequent to the execu- tion of the instrument, and especially if it only makes clear what was the evident intention of the parties, the law will presume that it wai made in good faith, and before execution." �In Equity. Suit to Foreclose Mortgage. �H. J. Horn, for plaintiff. �Roger s e Roger s, for defendant. �McCkaey, g. J. This cause bas been argued and aubmitted npon the merits. It is a suit brought to foreclose a mort- gage. Upon the face of the mortgage there appears an inter- lineation, the words "block 19" being interlined upon the face of the instrument. Without these words the property described oould not be located. They are, therefore, material, and the question is whether they were inserted before the execution of the mortgage or afterwards. This question must be decided upon the proof, and in view of the law applicable to suoh cases. The mortgage was twice recorded, The words in question do not appearintheyîrst record, but do ap- pear in the second. Several years intervened between the first and second reoording. It is contended by the defendants that the interlineation was made after the first recording, and without authority, while the plaintiff insists that the words were in the instrument as originally executed, and were omitted by the recorder in copying the same upon the record. The only testimony offered by the defendants is that of Henry H. Finley, one of the defendants, and who is the person who drew the mortgage. He testifiea that the words "block 19" ����
