The term "market value" can not be modified by extrinsic evidence. Bockian v. United Candy Co., 91 N. J. L. S14, 102 Atl. 393.

A contract which provides for discount for cash if paid at a certain time, can not be modified by extrinsic evidence to show that the parties were agreeing upon a trade discount. Hickman -Ebbert Co. v. Asa W. Allen Co., 1ll Miss. 161, 71 So. 310.

If a contract provides that property shall be "fully insured," extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show that the parties mean that it should be insured to three-fourths of its value. Kentucky Wagon Manufacturing Co. v. People's Supply Co., 77 S. Car. 92, 122 Am. St. Rep. 640, 57 S. E. 676.

If a contract for the sale of an article which is known by a definite name provides that it is "guaranteed true to name," extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to explain or contradict the meaning of such term. Burge v. Albany Nurseries, 176 Cal. 313, 168 Pac. 343.

In a building contract the word "plane" is unambiguous, and it is proper to exclude evidence to show the meaning of such term Hartley-Zeigler Co. v. Bacon, 251 Pa. St. 87, 96 Atl. 257.

A party who has given notice of termination of a contract for electricity on account of "excessive rates," can not introduce evidence to show his undisclosed intention in making use of such term. George W. Muller Bank Fixture Co. v. Georgia Ry. & Electric Co., 145 Ga. 484, 89 S. E. 615.

2 Wikle v. Johnson Laboratories, 132 Ala. 268, 31 So. 715.

3Vogt v. Schienebeck, 122 Wis. 491, 106 Am. St. Rep. 989, 67 L. R. A. 756, 100 N. W. 820.

4 Lippert v. Milling Co., 108 Wis. 512, 84 N. W. 831.

5 Fawkner v. Wall Paper Co., 88 la. 169, 45 Am. St. Rep. 230, 55 N. W. 200.

6 Davie v. Mining Co., 93 Mich. 491, 24 L. R. A. 357, 53 N. W. 625. (Oral evidence is inadmissible to show that this means "as long as we can make company wages.")

7 Burton v. Oil Co., 204 Pa. St. 349, 54 Atl. 266.

8 Stewart v. Cook, 118 Ga. 541, 45 S. E. 398.

9 Ryan v. Dubuque, 112 la. 284, 83 N. W. 1073.

10 England. Bank of New Zealand v. Simpson [1900], App. Cas. 182.

United States. Orvis v. British-American Cotton Co., 242 Fed. 835; Ryan v. Ohmer, 244 Fed. 31.

Alabama. Mobile County v. Linch, - Ala. - , 73 So. 423; Lutz v. Van Heynigen Brokerage Co., - Ala. - , 75 So. 284.

Colorado. Divine v. George, - Colo. - , 166 Pac. 242.

Connecticut. Falletti v. Carrano, 92 Conn. 636, 103 Atl. 753.

Iowa. Kelly v. Fejervary, 111 la. 603, 83 N. W. 791; Kvamme v. Barth-ell, 144 ta. 418, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 207, 118 N. W. 766; Emery v. American Ins. Co., 177 la. 4, 158 N. W. 748.

Kansas. Royer v. Western Silo Co., 99 Kan. 309, 161 Pac. 654; Outcault Advertising Co. v. H. 6. Waltner Mercantile Co., 96 Kan. 689, 153 Pac. 518.

Kentucky. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Greenville Coal Co., 169 Ky. 280, 183 S. W. 901; Johnson v. Tackitt, 173 Ky. 406, 191 S. W. 117; Macpherson v. Bacon's Executor, 180 Ky. 773, 203 S. W. 744 (obiter).

Massachusetts. Elastic Tip Co. v. Graham, 185 Mass. 597, 71 N. E. 117; Smith v. Vose & Sons Piano Co., 194 Mass. 193, 120 Am. St. Rep. 539, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 80 N. E. 527.

Michigan. Brown v. Bartlett, 201 Mich. 268, 167 N. W. 847; Harmon v. Michigan United Traction Co., - Mich. - , 168 N. W. 521.

Missouri. Interior Linseed Co. v. Becker-Moore Paint Co., 273 Mo. 433, 202 S. W. 566.

New Jersey. Streeter v. Seigman (N. J. Eq.), 48 Atl. 907.

Oklahoma. Cohee v. Turner, 37 Okla. 778, 132 Pac. 1082; Barricklow v. Boice, 50 Okla. 260, 150 Pac. 1094; First National Bank v. Womack, 56 Okla. 359, 156 Pac 207; Gilbert v.

Citizens' National Bank, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917A, 740, 160 Pac. 635.

Oregon. Corvallis & A. R. R. Co. v. Portland, E. & E. Ry. Co., 84 Or. 524, 163 Pac. 1173.

Rhode Island. Phetteplace v. Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 26, 49 Atl. 33.

South Dakota. McFarland v. Hilts-ley, - S. D. - , 166 N. W. 141.

Vermont. Douglass v. Morrisville, 89 Vt. 393, 95 Atl. 810.

Washington. Carstens v. Nut House, 96 Wash. 50, 164 Pac. 770; Mountain Timber Co. v. Lumber Insurance Co., 99 Wash. 243, 169 Pac. 591; Bookhout v. Vuich, 101 Wash. 511, 172 Pac. 740.

Wisconsin. Andrews v. Robertson, 111 Wis. 334, 87 Am. St. Rep. 870, 54 L. R. A. 673, 87 N. W. 190; Zielica v. Worzalla, 162 Wis. 603, 156 N. W. 623.

A provision for deducting commission from the proceeds of the sale of land may be shown to include commissions due on other sales. Kvamme v. Barthell, 144 la. 418, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 207, 118 N. W. 766.

The instructions which a ticket agent has given to a passenger to whom he sells a ticket may be said to show the construction placed upon the ticket by the carrier, although it can not vary the unequivocal terms thereof. Mace v. Southern R. Co., 151 N. Car. 404, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1178, 66 S. E. 342.

If a contract to furnish support in consideration of the conveyance of realty is ambiguous and there is a doubt as to the application of inheritance tax laws to such a transaction, evidence of the intention of the parties is admissible. In re Lamb, 140 la. 89, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 226, 117 N. W. 1118.

11 Andrews v. Robertson, 111 Wis. 334, 87 Am. St. Rep. 870, 54 L. R. A. 673, 87 N. W. 190.

12 Gilbert v. Citizens' National Bank, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917A, 740, 160 Pac. 635.

13McCutsky v. Klosterman, 20 Or. 108, 10 L. R. A. 785, 25 Pac. 366. (To show that it meant accounts outstanding after charging the bad accounts to profit and loss.)

14 Quarry Co. v. Clements, 38 O. S. 587, 43 Am. Rep. 442. (In this case evidence was admitted to show thai the parties had agreed that stone should be furnished at eighteen cents per cubic foot, and that the scrivener who drew the contract of his own motion, stated this rate by the perch and assumed that twenty five cubic feet made a perch. Accordingly, he stated the rate at four dollars and fifty cents a perch. The evidence showed that in cellar walls and foundations by the local usage the term "perch" meant sixteen and a half feet; in railroad masonry it meant twenty-five feet; and in bridge masonry, which was the subject of the contract, the term was ambiguous.)

15 Maynard v. Render, 95 Ga, 652, 23 S. E. 194.

16 Barrett v. Allen, 10 Ohio 426.

17 Succession of Serralles v. Esbri, 200 U. S. 103, 50 L. ed. 391.

18 Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 170 Ind. 328, 82 N. E. 52 [rehearing denied, Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 170 Ind. 328, 84 N. E. 5401.

19 Mountain Timber Co. v. Lumber Insurance Co., 99 Wash. 243, 169 Pac. 591.

It will be seen that some of the cases cited under the second branch of the rule are really contrary to those cited under the first branch. The cases under the second branch are some of them cases where, in spite of the general rule,29 the courts have really given reformation in an action at law under cover of construction.

If the parties agree as to the construction to be given to the contract, the court will adopt such construction without reference to the meaning which the court would have given to such contract if the parties had not agreed thereon.30

20 Brown v. Bartlett, 201 Mich. 268, 167 N. W. 847.

21 Bookhout v. Vuich, 101 Wash. 511, 172 Pac. 740.

22Carstens v. Nut House, 96 Wash. 60, 164 Pac. 770.

23 Divine v. George, - Colo. - , 166 Pac. 242.

24 Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Greenville Coal Co., 169 Ky. 280, 183 S. W. 901.

25Zielica v. Worzalla, 162 Wis. 603, 156 N. W. 623.

26 Smith v. Vose & Sons Piano Co., 194 Mass. 193, 120 Am. St. Rep. 539, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 966, 80 N. E. 527.

27 Outcault Advertising Co. v. H. G. Waltner Mercantile Co., 96 Kan. 689, 153 Pac. 518.

28Hill v. Hart, 23 N. M. 226, 167 Pac. 710.

29 See Sec. 2065.

The terms of a negotiable instrument must appear upon the face thereof,11 and uncertain or inconsistent terms can not be added by evidence of the intention of the parties direct.32 It has been said if the amount of a negotiable instrument as expressed in written words is different from the amount set forth in figures, evidence of the actual intention of the parties is inadmissible.33