a substantial compliance is all that has been required. Strickland v. Williams, 215 Ga. 175 ( 109 S.E.2d 761) (1959); Walton v. Johnson, 213 Ga. 108 ( 97 S.E.2d 310) (1957); Holt v. Ricketts, 143 Ga. App. 337 ( 238 S.E.2d 706) (1977); Farnan v. National Bank of Ga., 142 Ga. App. 777 ( 236 S.E.2d 923) (1977); New House Products v. Commercial Plastics c. Corp., 141 Ga. App. 199 ( 233 S.E.2d 45) (1977); Sockwell v. Pettus, 139 Ga. App. 311 ( 228 S.E.2d 343) (1976); Turks Memory Chapel v. Toccoa Casket Co., 134 Ga. App. 71 ( 213 S.E.2d 174) (1975); Candler v. Orkin, 129 Ga. App. 721 ( 200 S.E.2d 909) (1973); Aultman v. T. F. Taylor Fertilizer Works, 125 Ga. App. 398 ( 188 S.E.2d 157) (1972); Tankersley v. Security Nat. Corp., 122 Ga. App. 129 ( 176 S.E.2d 274) (1970); Newby v. Armour Agricultural Chem. Corp., 119 Ga. App. 650 ( 168 S.E.2d 652) (1969); Franco v. Bank of Forest Park, 118 Ga. App. 700 ( 165 S.E.2d 593) (1968); Harrison v. Arrendale, 113 Ga. App. 118 ( 147 S.E.2d 356) (1966); Dale, Inc. v. Dawson County Bank, 112 Ga. App. 560 ( 145 S.E.2d 619) (1965); Adair Realty c. Co. v. Williams Bros. Lumber Co., 112 Ga. App. 16 ( 143 S.E.2d 577) (1965); Dixie Const. Co. v. Griffin, 104 Ga. App. 457 ( 121 S.E.2d 926) (1961); Moore v. Trailmobile, 94 Ga. App. 892 ( 96 S.E.2d 529) (1957); Stone v. Colonial Credit Corp., 93 Ga. App. 348 ( 91 S.E.2d 835) (1956). An analysis of several cases both in this court and in the Court of Appeals supports this position.
The notations made in the margin of the note concerning the amounts of the credit life insurance premiums and the amount of interest charged in no way or manner altered or changed the obligation of the note itself, and absent that, the alteration does not operate to discharge the parties from their obligations. Code Ann. § 109A-3-407; Dale, Inc. v. Dawson County Bank, 112 Ga. App. 560 ( 145 S.E.2d 619). And see Overcash v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 115 Ga. App. 499 ( 155 S.E.2d 32); Overcash v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 117 Ga. App. 818 ( 162 S.E.2d 210). 5. There was no error in admitting the policies of insurance, and the records of the bank showing deposits of the premiums to the accounts of the companies issuing them, in explanation of the $669.