Whether a contract of indorsement can be varied by contemporaneous parol agreement depends on whether it is looked upon as a complete contract. A regular indorsement, that is, an indorsement by one in the chain of title is held in many jurisdictions to be a complete contract, and hence within the parol evidence rule.1 Where this view obtains a parol agreement that an indorsement was without recourse,2 that indorsement was made only to pass title,3 that the indorser was merely a guarantor,4 or a witness,5 or that he indorsed for identification only,6 or that he only guaranteed a deficiency after applying certain securities,7 or that he entered into an oral contract of guaranty,8 or that he was a maker,9 is in each case unenforceable. Even in jurisdictions which hold that a regular indorsement is a complete contract, there is a conflict as to whether a contemporaneous oral waiver of demand and notice is enforceable.10 If waiver of demand and notice is stamped on the back of a note above the signatures of the indorsers, evidence of an oral agreement that demand and notice should not be waived is unenforceable.11 Even in jurisdictions which hold that a blank indorsement is complete, a memorandum over the indorser's signature may show that some special contract was entered into and that this contract was not completely set forth. Thus a memorandum, "Sold one half this note to A," above the signature of the alleged indorser, may show that the contract was not one of indorsement, but a mere memorandum of A's interest.12 If the note is non-negotiable the oral agreement under which the promisee who signs as a first indorser would, had the note been negotiable, and another person who signs as a second indorser would, may be enforced.13

2 Bank v. Farnsworth, 7 N. D. 6; 38 L. R. A. 843; 72 N. W. 901.

1 Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30; United States Bank v. Dunn, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 51; Citizens' Bank v. Jones, 121 Cal. 30; 53 Pac. 354; Hately v. Pike, 162 111. 241; 53 Am. St. Rep. 304; 44 N. E. 441; Skelton v. Dus-tin, 92 111. 49; Shaw v. Jacobs, 89 la. 713, 719; 48 Am. St. Rep. 411; 21 L. R. A. 440; 55 X. W. 333; 56 N. W. 684; Porter v. Grain Co., 78 Minn. 210; 80 N. W. 965; Farwell v. Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495; 22 Am. St. Rep. 742; 48 N. W. 326; Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426; 82 Am. Dee. 105; Chaddock v. Vanness, 35 N. J. L. 517; 10 Am. Rep. 256; Fas-sin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 465.; River-view Land Co. v. Dance, 98 Va. 239; 35 S. E. 720; Citizens' National Bank v. Walton, 96 Va. 435; 31 S. E. 890.

2 Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30; United States Bank v. Dunn, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 51; Citizens' Bank v. Jones,

121 Cal. 30; 53 Pac. 354; Randle v. Coke Co., 15 App. D. C. 357; Courtney v. Hogan, 93 111. 101; Clarke v. Patrick, 60 Minn. 269; 62 X. W. 284; Lewis v. Dunlap, 72 Mo. 174; Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 465; Charles v. Denis, 42 Wis. 56; 24 Am. Rep. 383.

3 Iowa Valley State Bank v. Sig-stad, 96 Ia. 491; 65 N. W. 407.

4 Hately v. Pike, 162 111. 241; 53 Am. St. Rep. 304; 44 N. E. 441; Howe v. Merrill, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 80; Youngberg v. Nelson, 51 Minn. 172; 38 Am. St. Rep. 497; 53 N. W. 629.

5 Stack v. Beach, 74 Ind. 571; 39 Am. Rep. 113; Cochran v. Atchison, 27 Kan. 728; Prescott Bank v. Cav-erly, 7 Gray (Mass.) 217; 66 Am. Dec. 473; Bowler v. Braun, 63 Minn. 32: 56 Am. St. Rep. 449; 65 N. W. 124.

6 Alabama National Bank v. Rivers, 116 Ala. 1; 67 Am. St. Rep. 95; 22 So. 580.