The general rule is said to be that if a written waiver appears above the signature of an indorser, it is presumed to have been placed there with his authority.1 The courts are badly divided upon the question whether, if the actual agreement upon indorsement were for a waiver, the delivery of a blank indorsement impliedly authorizes the holder to insert the waiver above the indorsement.2 But if the authority to write the indorsement is denied by evidence to show that the waiver was unauthorized, it devolves upon the holder to prove the authority.3 The mere delivery of a regular blank indorsement, with authority to fill it up, does not authorize the writing of a waiver above it,4 even though the indorser authorized the holder to fill it up as he thought proper.5 Where authority is granted in this way it is generally by parol, and if the waiver is required to be written, as some statutes provide, it might be contended that the authority to write the waiver should be in writing; but the writing of the waiver is not the execution of a contract for another, but the mere filling up of the contract already executed and signed by the person to be charged. For a like reason the writing of the waiver is not a modification of the indorsement by parol evidence. Therefore, in all cases, whether an oral waiver be valid or not, the filling up of a blank indorsement according to agreement, express or implied, ought to be perfectly valid. An anomalous indorsement, that is to say one made by a stranger, wherever and see Sec. 298, note 25, and Sec. 299, notes 6, 10.

26 Culver v. Marks, 122 Ind. 554 27Barclay v. Weaver, 19 Pa. 396;

1 Farmer v. Rand, 14 Ma 225.

2 Fowler v. Fleming, 1 McMul. 282. Contra, Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495; and see the next section for the general discussion.

3 Farmer v. Rand, 14 Me. 225.

4Catlin v. Jones, 1 Pin. 130; Andrews v. Simons, 33 Ark. 771; Hill v. Martin, 12 Mart. (O. S.) 177.

5 Kimbro v. Lamb, 4 Humph. 95.