This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
The drawer of a bill of exchange is not protected by a contemporaneous oral agreement with the payee, exonerating him from liability if the drawee does not honor the draft.1 But where the original draft was lost and the payee so delayed through his agent's negligence as to release the drawer, it was held that the drawer's giving a duplicate draft, to enable the payee to collect, if possible, from the drawee, did not revive his liability. Accordingly, an oral contract that the drawer should not be liable on such duplicate draft is enforceable.2 If A has drawn a draft for B's accommodation, and B has deposited such draft for collection in bank X, and X has cashed B's checks in reliance upon such draft, extrinsic evidence is admissible in an action by X against A and B to show the relationship of the parties to the instrument.3
12 Brown v. People's Bank, 127 Ark. 486, 102 S. W. 000.
See also, Haupt v. Vint. 68 W. Va. 657, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 518, 70 S'. E. 702.
13 Reed v. Rogers, 134 Ark. 528. 204 S. W. 073; Pope v. Hoefs, 140 Minn. 443. 168 N. W. 584.
14Bulkeley v. House, 62 Conn. 459, 21 L. R. A. 247, 26 Atl. 352.
15Mann v. Mann. 119 Va. 630. 89 S. E. 897.
16Mann v. Mann, 119 Va. 630, 89 S. E. 897.
"Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Lippincott, 252 Pa. St. 112, 97 Atl. 201.
1 Leadbitter v. Farrow, 5 Maule & S. 345; Citizens' Bank v. Millelt, 103 Ky. 1, 82 Am. St. Rep. 546, 44 L. R. A. 664, 44 S. W. 366; Pentz v. Stanton, 10 Wend. (N Y.) 270, 25 Am. Dec. 558, Bryan v. Duff, 12 Wash. 233, 50 Am. St. Rep. 889. 40 Pac. 936.
2 Bank v. Famsworth, 7 N. D. 6, 38 L. R. A. 843, 72 N. W. 901.
3 Lyon County State Bank v. Schaef -er, 102 Kan. 868, 171 Pae. 1159.