As in the case of other assignments of title, the purpose for which the indorsement is given may be shown, as long as the legal effect of the indorsement is not contradicted.1 Thus an indorsement in blank may be shown to be for collection only,2 or as collateral security.3 However, a blank indorsement to a bank, credit for the amount of the instrument being given to the indorser, can not be shown to be for collection only.4 If the indorsement shows upon its face the purpose of the indorsement, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict the purpose which is therein expressed.8 An indorsement for collection can not be shown by parol to have been intended as an absolute indorsement.6 If an indorsement purports to be an indorsement for collection, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the indorsee is the actual owner of such instrument in whole or in part.7 If a note is indorsed to A, or order, and nothing appears on the indorsement to indicate that A was the cashier of a bank, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that such indorsement was made to A for the purpose of passing title to the bank.8 If A has indorsed a negotiable instrument in blank to the X bank, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that A took such instrument as the agent of the X bank and that he indorsed it as an accommodation, endorser to vest title in the bank.9 "Pay to the order of R. C. O., cashier, for account," of a given bank, shows an indorsement for collection only. Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the indorsement was an absolute transfer.10

Second indorser. Temple v. Baker, 125 Pa. St. 634, 11 Am. St. Rep. 926, 3 L. R. A. 709, 17 Atl. 516. (Oral evidence inadmissible to show a guarantor and hence liable to payee.)

Co-maker, if indorsement before delivery. Dennis v. Jackson, 57 Minn. 286, 47 Am. St. Rep. 603, 59 N. W. 198. (Can not be shown to be indorser.).

1 Johnston v. Schnabaum, 86 Ark. 82, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 838, 109 S. W. 1163; Citizens' State Bank v. Tessman, 121 Minn. 34, 45 L. R. A. (X.S.) 606, 140 N. W. 178; Howell v. McCarty, 77 W. Va. 695, 88 S. E. 181.

The last qualification, of course, applies in jurisdictions where an indorsement is held to be a complete contract, or else to indorsements in full which show the purpose for which they were sivem. Lawrence v. Bank, 6 Conn. 521; Hazzard v. Duke, 64 Ind. 220; Barker v. Prentiss, 6 Mass. 430.

2 Arkansas. Johnston v. Schnabaum, 86 Ark. 82, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 838, 109 S. W. 1163.

California. McPherson v. Weston. 85 Cal. 90, 24 Pac. 733. Illinois. Scammon v. Adams, 11 111

575.

Kentucky. Armstrong v. Bank, 90 Ky. 431, 9 L. R. A. 553, 14 S. W. 411.

Minnesota. Citizens' State Bank v. Tessman, 121 Minn. 34, 45 L. R. A. (X. S.) 606, 140 N. W. 178.

West Virginia. Howell v. McCarty. 77 W. Va. 695, 88 S. E. 181.

3Hazzard v. Duke, 64 Ind. 220.

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

5 Syracuse Third National Bank v. Clark, 23 Minn. 263; United States Na-tional 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. 2661: Smith v. Bayer, 46 Or. 143. 114 Am. St. Rep. 858, 79 Pac. 497; First Na-tional Bank v. McCullough, 50 Or. 508, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1105, 93 Pac. 366.

6 Syracuse Third National Bank v. Clark, 23 Minn. 263; United States National Bank v. Geer, 55 Neb. 462, 70 Am. St. Rep. 390, 41 L. R. A. 444, 75 N. \V. 1088 [reversing on rehearing, 53 Neb. 67, 41 L. R. A. 439, 73 N. W. 266].

7United 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. 2661; Smith v. Bayer, 46 Or. 143, 114 Am. St. Rep. 858, 79 Pac. 497.