In an action brought by plaintiff to recover the sum of $3,609,85 from Edward L. Tobin there was issued an attachment under which the sheriff took possession of an automobile belonging to Tobin. The defendants herein executed and delivered to Tobin an undertaking in the following form:

Tobin, without the knowledge or consent of either defendants or plaintiff, changed the words “Six Hundred and no/100 ($600.00),” appearing in the undertaking as delivered to him, to “Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty-nine and 85/100” and inserted “Four Thousand” in the blank space for the amount of the penalty of the undertaking. As so changed, Tobin delivered the undertaking to the sheriff, who thereupon released the attached property. Plaintiff recovered judgment against Tobin in the sum of $2,250. This action is for the recovery from the defendants of the amount of such judgment. The court found the facts as stated and gave the plaintiff judgment for the sum of $600. From this judgment the plaintiff has appealed on the judgment-roll alone.

The undertaking, as delivered by defendants to Tobin, was enforceable to the extent of $600, the sum for which the undertaking recites that plaintiff had sued Tobin. The omission to state the penalty in the blank space provided therefor did not render the undertaking invalid. “The object of a penalty in a bond is to limit the obligation of the signers.” (9 C. J. 40; 32 Cyc. 121.) The recitals in an undertaking, as in other contracts, may likewise limit the obligation of the sureties. In an undertaking for the release of an attachment, the recital of the amount for which suit was brought is material as showing the extent to which the signers intended to bind themselves, since a judgment cannot exceed the amount demanded in the complaint. The law relative to the filling of blanks in contracts and other changes therein after execution is clearly expressed in the following authorities:

In this ease the court has found that, after the execution of the undertaking, its terms were changed in the manner stated without the knowledge or consent of the defendants. Since the evidence was not brought up, it does not appear what the circumstances surrounding the transaction were, or whether they were such as to negative the implied consent to fill the blank space, arising from the delivery of the instrument with the unfilled blank. It cannot be conclusively inferred from the presence of unfilled blanks in an instrument, at the time of delivery, that the depositary thereof is authorized to fill such blanks, but the question of authority so to do is one of fact to be determined by the trial court from all the surrounding circumstances. In the absence of the evidence produced at the trial it must be presumed in support of the judgment that the circumstances proven negatived any implied consent of defendants to the making of the alterations in the undertaking.

The judgment is affirmed.

Jones, J., pro tom., and Burnett, J., concurred.