18 FEDEEAL EEPOETEB. �held that anînterlineationis presumably an unauthorized alter- ation of the instrument after execution, and that the burden ia upon the party offering the instrument in evidence to show the contrary. There are also cases inwhichinterlineations have been held to be prima fade, honafide, and that the burden is upon the party attacking the instrument to show that it was altered after execution. But I think that one rule govems in all these cases, and it is this : If the interlineation is in itself Buspicious, as, if it appears to be contrary to the probable meaning of the instrument as it stood before the insertion of the interlined words; or if it is in a handwriting different from the body of the instrument, or appears to have been written with different ink, — in all such cases, if the court con- siders the interlineation suspicious on its face, the presump- tion will be that it was an unauthorized alteration after exe- cution. On the other hand, if the interlineation appears in the same handwriting with the original instrument, and bears no evidence on its face of having been made subsequent to the execution of the instrument, and especially if it only makes clear what was the evident intention of the parties, the law will presume that it was made in good faith, and before exe- cution. Stoner v, Ellis, 6 Ind. 152; Huntington et al. v. Finch e Go. 3 Ohio St. 4e5 ; Nichoh v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 192; Burnham v. Ayer, 35 N. II. 351 ; Beaman v. Bussell, 20 Vt. 205. �These considerations dispose of the case so far as defend- ant Finleyis conoerned. The other defendants cannot claim to be bona fide purcjiasers without notice, because the mort- gage was recorded the second time before they purchased. �Decree for plaintiff for amount of note and interest, to be assessed by the clerk. ����
