Sec 683

A party claiming under a sealed covenant is bound by the general character of the consideration stated in the document. He cannot, for instance, if money be averred, prove natural love and affection; or if natural love and affection be averred, prove money.2 Yet where a deed is assailed by third parties on ground of fraud, it is admissible, in order to sustain the deed, to show a valuable consideration paid; and it is also admissible for an adverse party to attack the averment of consideration.3

Consideration cannot be disputed by those claiming under deed.

1 Leake, 2d ed. 147; Jefferys V. Jefferys, Cr. & Ph. 138; and cases cited supra, sec 495; Kekewich V. Manning, 1 D. M. & G. 176. It was said in this case that a "voluntary covenant, though under seal, in equity, where at least the covenantor is living, or where specific performance of such a covenant is sought,.stands scarcely, or not at all, on a better footing than if it were contained in an instrument unsealed." As authorities to the position that sealed contracts bind without consideration, see Irons V. Smallpiece, 2 B. & Ald. 551; Fallowes V. Taylor, 7 T. R. 475; Farrington V. Barr, 36 N. H. 86; Graves V. Graves, 29 N. H. 129; Trafton V. Howes, 102 Mass. 533; Center V. Billinghurst, 1 Cow. 33; Dale V. Roosevelt, 9 Cow. 307; Guy V. McLean, 1 DeV. 46.

2 Peacock V. Monk, 1 Ves. Sen. 128; Gale V. Williamson, 8 M. & W. 408; Morse V. Shattuck, 4 N. H. 229; Hol-brook V. Holbrook, 30 Vt. 432; Morris Canal Co. V. Ryerson, 27 N. J. L. 457; Clagett V. Hall, 9 Gill & J. 80.

3 Filmer V. Gott, 4 Br. P. C. 230; Clifford V. Turrell, 1 Y. & C. 138; Brown V. Lunt, 37 Me. 423; Abbott V. Marshall, 48 Me. 44; Wait V. Wait, 28 Vt. 350; Lewis V. Brewster, 57 Penn. St. 410; Potter V. Everitt, 7 Ired. Eq. 152; Hair V. Little, 28 Ala. 236; Eystra V. Capella, 61 Mo. 578; and see other cases cited Wh. on EV. sec 923-8, 1046-7.

Sec 684

As "simple" contracts at common law are to be considered all contracts not under seal; and whether such contracts are written or unwritten, they fall under the general terra of parol.1 The distinction between the two classes of documents as to consideration has been already noticed.2 It is also to be observed that the supposed superior solemnity and dignity of sealed documents have led to the rule that when such a document is executed, it absorbs all prior bargaining directed to the same object. This doctrine, however, is not peculiar to sealed documents. No matter how complex and deliberate may have been the negotiations preliminary to a written contract, those negotiations are regarded as all merged in the contract.3 "With respect to sealed documents the process is carried a step further, and it is held that when a sealed obligation is given for a debt already secured by an unsealed Writing, the unsealed is merged in the sealed document.4 But this supposes the sealed document to give the better security. If it do not (as might be the case when the unsealed document is attended by collaterals which the sealed document does not carry) then there should be no merger.5 Hence on the one side articles of agreement for a sale are merged in the deed of sale;6 and on the other side there is no merger on collateral matters not included in the matured deed, but included in the preparatory documents, and meant to be retained.1 Nor does a simple contract merge in a specialty given merely as collateral security.2

Simple contracts dis-tinguisha-ble from sealed contracts as to quality, as to consideration, and as to merger.

1 Rann V. Hughes, 7 L. R. 350 n.; Beckham V. Drake, 9 M. & W. 92; Stackpole V. Arnold, 11 Mass. 30; Cook V. Bradley, 7 Conn. 57; Burnett V. Biscoe, 4 John. 235; Perrine V. Cheeseman, 6 Halst. 174; see observations, supra, sec 642, as to ambiguity of term "parol.".

2 Supra, sec 495, 682.

3 Wh. on EV. sec 1014, and see supra, sec 5.

4 Matters V. Brown, 1 H. & C. 686; Drake V. Mitchell, 3 East, 251; Ban-orgee V. Hovey, 5 Mass. 11. A bond, therefore, taken from a partner, extinguishes a debt due from the partnership; Clemens V. Brush, 3 John. Cas. 180; Tom V. Goodrich, 2 John. 213; Andrews V. Smith, 9 Wend. 53; Hoskinson V. Elliott, 62 Penn. St. 393; Bennett V. Caldwell, 70 Penn. St. 253; see infra, sec 852, 1039.

5 See generally Twopenny V. Young, 3 B. & C. 210; 5 D. & R. 262; Ward V. Johnson, 13 Mass. 148.

6 Williams V. Hathaway, 19 Pick. 387; Witbeck V. Waine, 16 N. Y. 532; Jones V. Johnson, 3 W. & S. 276; Jones V. Wood, 16 Penn. St. 25; Carter V. Beck, 40 Ala. 599; see other cases in 1 Ch. on Cont. 11th ed. 9; and see supra, sec 5 et seq.