A note which is payable to either of two persons in the alternative, may be indorsed by one of them so that the indorsee is a holder in due course.1 The paper on which the indorser writes his name must be attached physically to the instrument.2 The owner's writing his name on a separate piece of paper,3 even if pinned to the note,4 is not indorsement, unless the back of the note is filled with indorsements and the additional paper is necessary for additional indorsements.

8United States. Thompson-Houston Electric Co. v. Electric Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 840.

Alabama. Vann v. Marbury, 100 Ala. 438, 46 Am. St. Rep. 70, 23 L. R. A. 325, 14 So. 273.

California. Hays v. Plummer, 126 Cal. 107, 77 Am. St. Rep. 153, 58 Pac. 447; More v. Finger, 128 Cal. 313, 60 Pac. 933.

Georgia. Benson v. Abbott, 05 Ga. 60, 22 S. E. 127; Sulunias v. Poolos, 148 Ga. 400, 06 S. E. 866.

Indiana. First National Bank v. Henry, 156 Ind. 1, 58 N. E. 1057.

Michigan. Marskey v. Turner, 81 Mich. 62, 45 N. W. 644.

Minnesota. Cochran v. Stein, 118 Minn. 323, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 391, 136 N. W. 1037.

Montana. Helena National Bank v. Telegraph Co., 20 Mont. 379, 63 Am St. Rep. 628, 51 Pac. 820.

Nebraska. Sackett v. Montgomery, 57 Neb. 424, 73 Am. St. Rep. 522, 77 N. W. 1083.

New York. Goshen National Bank v. Bingham, 118 N. Y. 340, 16 Am. St. Rep. 765, 7 L. R. A. 505, 23 N. E. 180.

Ohio. Kyle v. Thompson, 11 O. S. 616.

Oklahoma. Phelps v. Womack, - Okla. - , 167 Pac. 478.

South Carolina. First National Bank v. Wood, - S. Car. - , 05 S. E. 140.

Washington. Puget Sound State Bank v. Washington Paving Co., 04 Wash. 504, 162 Pac. 870.

Wisconsin. Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 47 L. R. A. 417, 81 N. W. 495.

Wyoming. Capitol Hill State Bank v. Rawlins National Bank, 24 Wyom. 423, 160 Pac. 1171.

9 O'Keeffe v. Bank, 49 Kan. 347, 33 Am. St. Rep. 370, 30 Pac. 473; Stevens v. Hannan, 86 Mich. 305, 24 Am. St. Rep. 125, 48 N. W. 951; Sackett v. Montgomery, 57 Neb. 424, 73 Am. St. Rep. 522, 77 N. W. 1083; Hopkins v Manchester, 16 R. T. 663, 7 L. R. A. 387, 19 Atl. 243.

10 Pavey v. Stauffer, 45 La. Ann. 353, 19 L. R. A. 716, 12 So. 512; Goshen National Bank v. Bingham, 118 N. Y 349, 16 Am. St. Rep. 765, 7 L. R. A. 595, 23 N. E. 180.

11 Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

1 Voris v. Schoonover, 91 Kan. 530, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1097, 138 Pac. 607.

Whether a written guaranty of an instrument or a waiver of demand and notice are equivalent to an indorsement so that the holder to whom such instrument is delivered under such contract is not subject to all the defenses which could have been made against the original payee, is a question upon which there has been some conflict of judicial opinion. By the great weight of authority, such a transfer amounts to an indorsement and delivery of the instrument, and the guaranty and waiver of demand and notice are intended to add to the rights of the transferee and not to detract from them. He is, accordingly, protected as a bona fide holder.5An indorsement, "payment guaranteed, protest waived,"6 or "pay to any bank or banker, all previous indorsements guaranteed,"7 or "for value received we hereby warrant the makers of this note financially good on execution,"8 or "for value received I hereby guarantee payment of the within at maturity or any time thereafter, with interest at the rate of eight per cent. per annum until paid, waiving demand and notice of non-payment and protest,"9 has been held in each case to make the transferee a bona fide holder. An indorsement by the payee, "I hereby acknowledge myself a principal maker of this note," amounts to an indorsement.10

2 Commercial Security Co. v. Main Street Pharmacy, 174 N. Car. 655, 94 S. E. 298.

3 Hays v. Plummer, 126 Cal. 107, 77 Am. St. Rep. 153, 58 Pac. 447; French v. Turner, 15 Ind. 59; Doll v. Hollen-beck, 19 Neb. 639; Commercial Security Co. v. Main Street Pharmacy, 174 N. Car. 655, 94 S. E. 298.

4 Bishop v. Chase, 156 Mo. 158, 56 S. W. 1080.

5 Georgia. Hendrix v. Bauharrt, 138 Ga. 473, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1028, 75 S. E. 588.

Iowa. Voss v. Chamberlain, 139 Ia. 569, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 106, 117 N. W 269.

Kansas. Kellogg v. Douglas County Bank, 58 Kan. 43, 62 Am. St. Rep. 596, 48 Pac. 587.

Missouri. Maddox v. Duncan, 143 Mo. 613, 65 Am. St. Rep. 678, 41 L R. A. 681, 45 S. W. 688.

Nebraska. National Bank of Commerce v. Bossemeyer, 101 Neb. 96, L. R. A. 1917E, 374, 162 N. W. 503.

Oklahoma. First National Bank v. Cummings, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918D, 1099, 171 Pac. 862 [following, McNary v. Farmers' National Bank, 33 Okla. 1, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1009, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 248, 124 Pac. 286; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Uttcrback, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917B, 364, 160 Pac. 713; and overruling, Ireland v. Floyd,

42 Okla. 609, L. R. A. 1915C, 661, 142 Pac. 401].

6 Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utter-back, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917B, 364, 160 Pac. 713.

7 National Bank of Commerce v. Bossemeyer, 101 Neb. 96, L. R. A. 1917E. 374, 162 X. W 503.

8Hendrix v. Bauhard, 138 Ga. 473,

43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1028, 75 S. E. 588.

There is, however, some authority for holding that the addition of a guaranty is so inconsistent with the liability of an indorser, that the transferee is not a bona fide holder.11 This view was taken under the Oklahoma statute, in force before the Negotiable Instruments Law.12 Oklahoma has, however, changed its views on this question more than once.13

An indorsement which shows that another person has an interest in the proceeds of the note destroys its negotiability and puts the purchaser upon inquiry as to the interest of such other person.14

An assignment of a note written upon the back thereof, and signed by the payee, is generally regarded as equivalent to an indorsement.15This view is generally taken under the Negotiable Instruments Law.16 Whether a transfer of all of the holder's "right, title and interest," amounts to an indorsement, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. In some jurisdictions such assignment is held to be equivalent to an indorsement so that the transferee is a bona fide holder,17 while in other jurisdictions such an assignment is held at most to be a qualified indorsement which does not render the transferee a bona fide holder.18

9 First National Bank v. Cummings, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918D, 1099, 171 Pac. 862.

10 Kistner v. Peters, 223 111. 607, 114 Am. St. Rep. 362, 79 N. E. 311.

11 New York Central Trust Co. v. Wyandotte First National Bank, 101 U. S. 68, 25 L. ed. 876; Ireland v. Floyd, 42 Okla. 609, L. R. A. 1915C, 661, 142 Pac. 401 [overruled in, First National Bank v. Cummings, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918D, 1099, 171 Pac. 862].

12 Douglass v. Brown, 56 Okla. 6, 155 Pac. 887.

13 See note 5 ante, this section.

14 Keisel v. Baldock, 55 Okla. 487, L. R. A. 1916D, 632, 154 Pac. 1194.

15 Markey v. Corey, 108 Mich. 184, 62 Am. St. Rep. 698, 36 L. R. A. 117, 66 N. W. 493; Colona v. Parksley National Bank. 120 Va. 812, 92 S. E. 979; Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149, 107 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 68 L. R. A. 146, 101 N W. 417.

16 Farnsworth v. Burdick, 94 Kan. 749, 147 Pac. 863; Colona v. Parksley National Bank, 120 Va. 812, 92 S. E. 979.

17 Coddington Savings Bank v. Anderson, 64 Neb. 205, 89 N. W. 787; Marion National Bank v. Harden, - W. Va. - , 97 S. E. 600.

18 Gale v. Mayhew, 161 Mich. 96, 29 L. R. A. (N.S.) 648, 125 N. W. 781.