Ignoring a request to consent to a contract change might amount to consent. See Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Gould, 258 F.2d 883 (10th Cir.1958); Federal Surety Co. v. White, 88 Colo. 238, 295 P. 281 (1930); Hellman v. Farrelly, 132 A.D. 151, 116 N.Y.S. 809 (1909) (acquiescence as consent). But it is still just consent to the contract change.

The general rule is that in order to relieve a compensated surety from liability where there has been an alteration or deviation from the terms of a contract, the surety must be prejudiced thereby. Federal Surety Company v. White, 88 Colo. 238, 295 P. 281; National Surety Companyv. Queen City Co., 63 Colo. 105, 164 P. 722; Empire State Surety Company v. Lindenmeier, 54 Colo. 497, 131 P. 437; 21 R.C.L. 1160. We hold that the trial judge did not err in finding as it did or in the judgment it entered in respect thereto.

" See, also, Federal Co. v. White, 88 Colo. 238, 295 P.2d 281; Empire Co. v. Lindenmeier, 54 Colo. 497 131 Pac. 437. The fact that the court did not at the time at the entry of judgment compute the amount of the interest accrued to that date is not material; the computation can be made at any time.

See Federal Surety Co. v. White, 88 Colo. 238, 261, 295 P. 281, 290 (1930)("While [corporations who receive consideration for issuing bonds] may call themselves 'surety companies,' their business in all essential particulars is that of insurers."); see also Loyal Order of Moose v. International Fidelity Insurance Co., 797 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1990); see generally J. Appleman, Insurance Law Practice § 5273 (West 1981); 2 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 15:8 at 130 (R. Anderson 2d ed. 1984)("Contracts of this kind are now almost universally regarded as those of insurance where the underwriter engages in the business for profit . . . .").

The court held that the loan to the contractor was an independent transaction and not a payment under the contract in violation of its terms, and that therefore it did not relieve the sureties from liability pro tanto; and also payment of the money to the contractor as a loan was not the result of a breach of the contract by the contractor, and therefore the sureties were liable to the owner on that account. See Federal Surety Co. v. White, 88 Colo. 238, 295 P. 281; American Employers' Insurance Co. v. Huddleston (Tex.Civ.App.) 39 S.W.2d 952; Grinnell Realty Co. v. General Casualty Surety Co., 253 Mich. 16, 234 N.W. 125; Becker-Boter Oil Gas Co. v. Bonding Ins. Co., 254 Mich. 94, 235 N.W. 869. Applying the foregoing principles to the undisputed facts in the present case, the signing of the $15,000 note as surety, even if regarded as a payment in advance by Mrs. Noe to the contractors, the appellant was in nowise damaged, injured, or prejudiced thereby.