An irregular indorsement, that is an indorsement by one not in the chain of title, may be explained by parol in many jurisdictions.1 Thus such indorser may be shown to be a joint-maker,2 or the real debtor,3 or that a new note secured by mortgage was to have been given when the first note was half paid,4 or that successive blank indorsers were co-indorsers.5 In other jurisdictions the law regards the liability of an irregular indorser as so clear and certain that oral evidence of the real contract is inadmissible, though there is no harmony among the different jurisdictions as to what that liability is.6

1 First National Bank v. Crabtree, 86 la. 731; 62 N. W. 559; Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, 105 La. 405; 29 So. 906; Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 406; 64 Am. St. Rep. 246; 40 Atl. 128; Jaster v. Currie, - Neb. -; 94 N. W. 995; Corbett v. Fetzer, 47 Neb. 269; 66 N. W. 417; Holmes v. Bank, 38 Neb. 326; 41 Am. St. Rep. 733; 56 N. W. 1011; Coffin v. Smith, 128 N. C. 252; 38 S. E. 864; Taylor v. French, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 257; 31 Am. Rep. 609.

2Pritchett v. Hape (Ky.), 51 S. W. 608. (By statute.) Dickinson v. Burke, 8 N. D. 118; 77 N. W. 279; Cake v. Bank, 116 Pa. St. 264; 2 Am. St. Rep. 600; 9 Atl. 302.

3 Barger v. Farnham, 130 Mich. 487; 90 N. W. 281.

4 Harrison v. McKim, 18 la. 485; Leary v. Blanchard, 48 Me. 269; United States National Bank v. Geer, 55 Neb. 462; 70 Am. St. Rep. 390; 41 L. R. A. 444; 75 N. W. 1088; (reversing on rehearing, 53 Neb. 67; 41 L. R. A. 439; 73 N. W. 266).

1 Carroll v. Nodine, 41 Or. 412; 93 Am. St. Rep. 743; 61 Pac. 51.

2 Carroll v. Nodine, 41 Or. 412; 93 Am. St. Rep. 743; 69 Pac. 51.

3 Youngberg v. Nelson, 51 Minn. 172; 38 Am. St. Rep. 497; 53 N. W. 629.

4 Cross v. Hollister, 47 Kan. 652; 28 Pac. 693.