The alteration of the date of the note, made by the agent of the maker under the supposition that he had authority to make such an alteraron,. *502did not render the note void. If there was no authority to make such an alteration, the note would still be a subsisting obligation, as it was before it was altered.
[New York General Term, September 16, 1861.The judge erred in holding the note to be void, where there was no evidence of a fraudulent intent.
Hew trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
Clerke, Ingraham and Leonard, Justices.]