In other jurisdictions a regular indorsement is treated as an incomplete contract, or as some courts express it, only evidence that some contract has been entered into. Where such view obtains extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the terms of the contract.1 Thus a parol contract that the indorsement was without recourse,2 or that the indorser was a joint maker,3 is enforceable where this rule obtains. Even where a blank indorsement is held to be incomplete a memorandum over the signature may show a complete written contract. Extrinsic evidence of the terms of the contract is then inadmissible.4

7 Adams v. Wallace, 119 Cal. 67; 51 Pac. 14.

8 Johnson v. Glover, 121 111. 283; 12 N. E. 257; overruling Worden v. Salter, 90 111. 160.

9 Finley v. Green, 85 111. 535; Vore v. Hurst, 13 Ind. 551; 74 Am. Dec. 268; Porter v. Grain Co., 78 Minn. 210; 80 N. W. 965.

10 That it is. Markland v. Mc-Daniel, 51 Kan. 350; 20 L. R. A. 96; 32 Pac. 1114; Taunton Bank v. Richardson, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 436; Dye v. Scott, 35 O. S. 194; 35 Am. Am. Rep. 604; Annville National Bank v. Kettering, 106 Pa. St. 531; 51 Am. Rep. 536. That it is not enforceable. Goldman v. Davis, 23 Cal. 256; Farwell v. Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495; 22 Am. St. Rep. 742; 48 N. W. 326; Rodney v. Wilson, 67 Mo. 125; 29 Am. Rep. 499.

11 Farmers' Exchange Bank v. Mining Co., 129 Cal. 263; 61 Pac. 1077.

12 Hathaway v. Rogers, 112 la. 638; 84 N. W. 674.

13 Young v. Sehon, 53 W. Va. 127; 62 L. R. A. 499; 44 S. E. 136.