. 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 or an oral agreement that an endorser who sold an instrument for less than its face value should not be called upon to pay the same;3 or that a blank endorsement was to have no legal effect;4 or that indorsement was made only to pass title;5 or that the indorser was merely a guarantor,6 or a witness;7 or that he indorsed for identification only; 8 or that he only guaranteed a deficiency after applying certain securities;9 or that he entered into an oral contract of guaranty;10 or that he was a maker,11 is in each case unenforceable.

1 United States. United States Bank v. Dunn, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 51, 8 L. ed. 316; Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30, 26 L. ed. 647.

Alabama. People's Bank v. Moore, - Ala - , 78 So. 789.

California. Citizens' Bank v. Jones 121 Cal. 30, 53 Pac. 354.

Connecticut. Schine v. Johnson, 02 Conn. 590, 103 Atl. 974.

Illinois. Skelton v. Dustin, 92 111. 49; Hately v. Pike, 162 111. 241, 53 Am. St. Rep. 304, 44 N. E. 441.

Iowa. Shaw v. Jacobs, 89 Ia. 713 719; 48 Am. St. Rep. 411, 21 L. R. A 440, 55 N. W. 333, 56 N. W. 684.

Kansas. Blair v. McQuary, 100 Kan. 203, 162 Pac. 1173 [judgment modified on rehearing, Blair v. McQuary, 100 Kan. 203, 164 Pac. 262].

Minnesota. Kern v. Von Phul, 7 Minn. 426, 82 Am. Dec. 105; Farwell v. Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495, 22 Am. St. Rep. 742, 48 N. W. 326; Porter v. Grain Co., 78 Minn. 210, 80 N. W. 965; Giltner v. Quirk, 131 Minn. 472, 155 N. W. 760; Lake Harriet State Bank v. Miller, 138 Minn. 481, 164 X. W. 989.

Mississippi. Hawkins v. Shields, 100 Miss. 739, 4 A. L. R. 760, 57 So. 4.

New Jersey. Chaddock v. Vanness, 35 N. J. L. 517, 10 Am. Rep. 256.

New York. Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 465.

Oklahoma. Clark v. Sallaska, - Okla. - , 4 A. L. R. 746, 174 Pac. 505 (obiter, as evidence allowed under special circumstances).

Texas. Cresap v. Manor, 63 Tex. 485.

Virginia. Citizens' National Bank v. Walton, 96 Va. 435, 31 S. E. 890; Riverview Land Co. v. Dance, 98 Va. 239, 35 S. E. 720.

Washington. Holt Mfg. Co. v. Brotherton. 91 Wash 354, 157 Pac. 849.

Wisconsin. Union Bank v. Commercial Securities Co., 163 Wis. 470, 157 N. W. 510.

This result has been reached under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Guaranty Investment Co. v. Gamble, 102 Kan. 791, 171 Pac. 1152; Meyers Co. v. Battle, 170 N. Car. 168 [sub nominee, Myers Co. v. Battle, 86 S. E. 1034].

"It is not competent to vary a written contract by parol evidence of what occurred between the parties prior to or contemporaneous with its making, and the law in that respect applies to the contract relations between the payee of a note and one who places his name thereon, in form, as an indorsee no fraud being practiced in securing the indorsement." Union Bank v. Commercial Securities Co., 163 Wis. 470, 157 N. W. 510 [citing, Charles v. Denis, 42 Wis. 56; Davy v. Kelley, 66 Wis. 452, 29 N. W. 232; Halbach v Trester, 102 Wis. 530, 78 X. W. 759, and Hackley National Bank v. Barry. 139 Wis. 96, 120 N. W. 275].

2 United States. United States Bank v. Dunn, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 51, 8 L. ed. 316; Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30, 26 L ed. 647.

California. Citizens' Bank v. Jones, 121 Cal. 30, 53 Pac. 354.

District of Columbia. Randle v. Coke Co., 15 D. C. App. 357.

Illinois. Courtney v. Hogan, 93 111. 101.

Minnesota. Clarke v. Patrick, 60 Minn. 269, 62 N. W. 284; Lake Harriet

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.12 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.13 If the words "without recourse" appear upon the back of the note under the signature of an endorser, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that such provision was intended to apply to the contract of such endorser,14 especially under a statute which permits a qualified endorsement without adding the words "without recourse."15 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.16 The contract between the indorsers themselves is often regarded as subject to explanation by extrinsic evidence.17 It is said that while it is the general rule that a blank indorsement can not be modified by extrinsic evidence, an exception to such rule arises "when any fact or transaction raises an equity between endorser and endorsee, and shows it to be inequitable to enforce the written contract." 18 An oral agreement by which the indorser agreed to collect the instrument and agreed to waive delay, was accordingly held to be admissible.19 As between the indorsers themselves, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the order of their indorsement.20 Accordingly, if A has drawn a bill of exchange payable to his own order, and has endorsed it, and B's signature appears upon the back of the instrument above A's endorsement, and if it is placed there before delivery, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that he intended to become surety for the acceptor and to undertake a liability to the indorser.21 Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that accommodation indorsers had entered into an agreement fixing the proportions of their respective liabilities.22 An indorser may show that he was an accommodation indorser.23 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.24 Even when a contemporaneous oral contract can not modify a blank indorsement, a subsequent oral contract, made when the indorser transfers for the second time a note which he has indorsed before, and to which he has regained title, may modify the effect of the former blank indorsement and the second delivery.25

State Bank v. Miller, 138 Minn. 481, 164 N. W. 989.

Missouri. Lewis v. Dunlap, 72 Mo. 174.

New York. Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 465.

Wisconsin. Charles v. Denis, 42 Wis. 56, 24 Am. Rep. 383.

3 Decided under the Negotiable In-struments Law. Guaranty Investment Co. v. Gamble, 102 Kan. 791, 171 Pac. 1152.

4 Schine v. Johnson, 92 Conn 590, 103 Atl. 974.

5 Iowa Valley State Bank v. Sigstad, 96 Ia. 491, 65 N. W. 407; Blair v. Mc-Quary, 100 Kan. 203, 162 Pac. 1173 [judgment modified on rehearing, Blair v. McQuary, 100 Kan. 203, 164 Pac. 262].

6 Hately v. Pike, 162 111. 241, 53 Am. St. Rep. 304, 44 N. E. 441; Howe v. Merrill, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 80; Young-berg v. Nelson, 51 Minn. 172, 38 Am. St. Rep. 497, 53 N. W. 629.

7 Stack v. Beach, 74 lnd. 571, 39 Am. Rep. 113; Cochran v. Atchison, 27 Kan. 728; Prescott Bank v. Caverly, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) 217, 66 Am. Dec. 473; Bowler v. Braun, 63 Minn. 32, 56 Am. St. Rep. 149, 65 N. W. 124.

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

9 Adams v. Wallace, 119 Cal. 67, 61 Pac. 14.

10 Johnson v. Glover, 121 111. 283, 12 N. E. 257 [overruling, Worden v. Salter, 90 111. 160].

11Finley v. Green, 85 111. 535; Vore v. Hurst, 13 lnd. 551, 74 Am. Dec. 268; Porter v. Grain Co., 78 Minn. 210, 80 N. W. 965; Harnett v. Holdrege, 73 Neb. 570, 119 Am. St. Rep. 905, 103 N. W. 277.

So under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Myers Co. v. Battle, 170 N. Car. 168, 86 S. E. 1034 [citing, Perry v. Taylor. 148 N. Car. 362, 62 S. E. 423, and Houser v. Faysoux, 168 N. Car. 1, 83 S. E. 692].

12 That it is enforceable. Markland v. McDaniel, 51 Kan. 350, 20 L. R. A. 96, 32 Pac. 1114; Taunton Bank v. Richardson, 22 Mass. (5 Pick.) 436; Dye v. Scott, 35 O. S. 194, 35 Am. Rep. 604: In re Marquardt's Estate, 251 Pa. St. 73, 95 Atl. 917.

That it is not enforceable. Annville National Bank v. Kettering, 106 Pa. St. 531, 51 Am. Rep. 536; 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; Holt Mfg. Co. v. Brotherton, 91 Wash. 364,157 Pac. 849.

13 Farmers' Exchange Bank v. Mining Co., 120 Cal. 263, 61 Pac. 1077.

14Leahmer v. McCollough, 99 Kan. 451. 162 Pac. 207; Goolrick v. Wallace, 154 Ky. 506, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 780, 157 8. W. 920.

15Goolrick v. Wallace, 154 Ky. 506, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 780, 157 S. W. 920.

16 Hathaway v. Rogers, 112 Ia. 638, 84 N. W. 674.

17Moll v. Roth Co., 77 Or. 503, 152 Pac. 235; Plumley v. First National Bank, 76 W. Va. 635, 87 S. E. 94.

18 Decided under Negotiable Instruments Law. Moll v. Roth Co., 77 Or. 593, 152 Pac. 235.

19 Decided under Negotiable Instruments Law. Moll v. Roth Co.. 77 Or. 593, 152 Pac. 235.

20 Trego v. Cunningham, 267 111. 367, 108 N. E. 350; Schneider v. Mueller, 82 N. J. L. 503, 81 Atl. 863; Haddock v. Haddock, 192 N. Y. 499, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 136, 85 N. E. 682.

21 Haddock v. Haddock, 192 N. Y. 499, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 136, 85 N. E. 682