HBBSMAN V. WEBaSS. 88i �firm 80 changed ît, witliouther authority, as to make her a prin- cipal instead of an accommodation party. Surely, then, the note and mortgage ceased, as to her, to have any validity in the hands of Kreuger, and Kreuger could transfer to the com- plainant no better title as against Mrs. Werges than he him- self had. The contract evidenced by the note and mortgage was not Mrs. Werges' contract after the forgery of her name to the note, and it could not be made her contract by its transfer to the complainant. The instrument which Mrs. Werges signed was not negotiable, and the note ceased to be Bo in the hands of Kreuger after he destroyed its identity, and made it a different note from that which the parties had signed, by the forgery of Mrs. Werges' name to it. �Suppose a party holding negotiable paper delivered to him for his own accommodation, for the purpose of enabling him to raise money upon it, makes a material alteration of it, and then passes the paper for value to an innocent indorsee. Can the original accommodation makers be held upon the^ paper ? Clearly not, because the paper passed to the innocent indorser is not the deed of the accommodation makers. Noth- ing is better settled in the law of negotiable paper than that those defences which go to the very inception and validity of the paper may always be set up against an innocent holder of the paper. Hence, where the name of a party bas been forged to a negotiable bill or note, or where it bas been exe- cuted without his authority, it is utterly void as against him in the banda of an innocent holder or indorsee. The same rule must undoubtedly hold as to any material alteration made after its execution or indorsement, when it is sought to enforce the paper against the maker or indorser. Suppose the holder of a note for one thousand dollars should change it to two thousand dollars, and then indorse it before due for value, could the maker be made liable upon it? Would sueh an instrument be the deed or contract of the maker? Would the holder bave any authority whatever to bind the maker by indorsing it over for value ? �But is insisted that, even setting aside the note as utterlj null and void, this suit can be maintained upon the mortgags ����
