Cases of guaranty are sometimes considered, and no doubt very properly so, as instances of waiver.1 An indorser who writes the word "accountable" after his signature waives demand and notice;2 but the word "unconditionally" after the indorser's signature was not considered a waiver,3 nor is an indorsement in this form: "I assign on condition that the property of the maker and indorsers is exhausted before recourse on me."4 The indorser who signs his name below that of another indorser whose name on the bill or note is accompanied by a waiver is considered also as having signed the waiver.5 The indorsing of a note which contains a waiver in the body of the note,6 or stamped on the back,7 or who signs such a bill of exchange, is bound by the waiver, and that is so even though he have a general agreement with the holder for notice upon all paper indorsed by him.8 The waiver may also arise from a general agreement,9 provided its proper construction will enable it to cover the particular paper in question.10 It follows from the parol evidence rule that an express waiver in writing that is general cannot be shown by evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement to have been for a limited time,11 or to have been subject to conditions not expressed in the waiver.12 But a waiver in writing may be modified by an oral agreement afterward made.13

1 See Sec. 241, ante.

2Furber v. Caverly, 42 N. H. 74

3Dowd v. Aaron, 2 Hill (S. C), 531.

4 Duffy v. O'Conner, 7 Baxt. 498.

5 Portsmouth Sav. Bank v. Wilson, 5 App. D. C. 8; Parshley v. Heath, 69 Ma 90. See Central Bank v. Davis, 19 Pick. 373.

6Dunnegan v. Stevens, 122 I11. 396; Gordon v. Montgomery, 19 Ind. 110; Sohn v. Morton, 92 Ind. 170; Leeds v. Hamilton Paint Co., 35 S. W. R, (Tex.) 77; Hoover v. Mc-Cormick, 84 Wis. 215 (upon notes);

Neal v. Wood, 23 Ind. 523; Lowry v. Sfeele, 27 Ind. 168; Bryant v. Merchants' Bank, 8 Bush, 43 (upon bills of exchange).

7 Farmers' Bank v. Ewing, 78 Ky. 264.

8 Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396.

9 Duval v. Farmers' Bank, 7 Gill & J. 44, 9 Gill & J. 31. See Martin v. Perqua, 65 Hun, 225.

10 Studebaker v. Ryan, 46 Kan. 273.

11 Hayes v. Fitch, 47 Ind. 21; Buckley v. Bentley, 42 Barb. 646.

12 See Jones v. Albee, 70 I1L 34 The express written waiver cannot

13 This is the general rule as to all simple contracts.

The construction of express waivers is as follows: A waiver of protest waives a presentation for payment, demand and notice of non-payment.14 Waiver of notice of demand and protest waives all steps in the proper protest.15 A waiver of protest and notice waives demand as well as notice,16 and so would a waiver of protest or notice17 and a waiver of demand of protest.18 A waiver of demand seems to waive notice of non-payment - a very proper rule.19 But a waiver of notice,20 or a waiver of notice of demand,21 or a waiver of notice of protest,22 does not waive a demand, unless it be accompanied with a guaranty.23 A waiver of notice of protest and demand waives demand, protest and notice.24 But a married woman, who by her indorsement charges her separate estate, does not waive demand or notice.25 An agreement between the parties (drawer and payee) not to present be supplemented by oral testimony in order to give it a greater effect. Burke v. Ward, 32 S. W. R. 1047. But see contra, Mills v. Beard, 19 Cal. 158, where the different waivers were contemporaneous. But the waiver, if ambiguous, may be explained by parol evidence. Union Bank v. Hyde, 6 Wheat 572. 14 First Nat. Bank v. Falkanhan, a check amounts to a waiver of demand and notice 26 as to the drawer, as well as to an indorser if he were a party to the agreement.27

94 Cal. 141; Fitch v. Citizens' Nat Bank, 97 Ind. 211; Harvey v*Nelson, 31 La. Ann. 434; Carpenter v. Reynolds, 42 Miss. 807; Scott v. Greer, 10 Pa. 103; Jaccard v. Anderson, 37 Mo. 91; Cooke v. Pome-roy, 65 Conn. 466; Shaw v. McNeil,

95 N. C. 535; Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, 50 Conn. 567; Car-mena v. Mix, 15 La. 165; First Nat. Bank v. Hartman, 110 Pa. 196; Fisher v. Price, 37 Ala. 407. See, however, Johnson v. Parsons, 140 Mass. 173 (waives notice but not demand); Moffatt v. Griswold, 1 Neb. 415 (waives demand but not notice).

15 Johnson Co. Sav. Bank v. Lowe, 47 Mo. App. 151.

16 Gordon v. Montgomery, 19 Ind. 110; Baker v. Scott, 29 Kan. 136; Walford v. Andrews, 29 Minn. 250; Walker v. Popper, 2 Utah, 96. Contra, Scull v. Mason, 43 Pa. 99, sem-ble.

17 Hatley v. Jackson, 48 Md. 254. 18 Porter v. Kemball, 53 Barb. 467. 19 Dye v. Scott, 35 Ohio St. 194;

Jaccard v. Anderson, 37 Mo. 91.

20 Lane v. Steward, 20 Me, 98; Buchanan v. Marshall, 22 Vt. 561.

21Voorhees v. Atlee, 29 Iowa, 49; Drinkwater v. Tibbets, 17 Me 16; Berkshire Bank v. Jones, 6 Mass. 524; Backus v. Sheperd, 11 Wend. 629.

22 Buckley v. Bentley, 42 Barb. 646; Sprague v. Fletcher, 8 Oreg. 367.

23 Farmer v. Sewell, 16 Me, 456; Backus v. Sheperd, 11 Wend. 629.

24 Hammett v. Frenworthy, 51 Ma App. 281. 25 Jaffray v. Krauss, 79 Hun, 449.