To have two or more writings construed together it is not necessary that one of them should refer to the other in express terms. If two or more writings are executed at the same time, between the same parties and concerning the same subject-matter, they may be construed together as a part of the same contract,1 at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary.2 Thus a note and the contract under which it was made,3 especially if the note refers to the contract,4 a deed, mortgage and note,5 a building and loan association note, mortgage and contract,6 a deed and a chattel mortgage,7 a contract and a chattel mortgage,8 a land contract and a bond,9 a deed and a lease,10 a lease and a contract,11 a will, deed, and contract,12 and a deed and an acknowledgment of trust by the grantee13 may in each case be construed together. So a term inserted in one letter need not be repeated in subsequent letters on the same subject, not inconsistent with such term in order to preserve its force.14 While a note may be construed in connection with a contemporaneous contract, such construction cannot be invoked to modify its legal effect if it is in the hands of a bona fide holder for value.15 If the two contracts are not executed at the same time but refer to the same subject-matter and on their face show that they were executed each as a means of carrying out the same intent as the other, they may be construed together.16 Thus a note and the contract, executed a few days before the note, in consideration of which it was executed,17 a transfer of stock and the contract under which it was transferred,18 and a trust deed and a deed thereunder19 are to be construed together. Even if two writings are executed on different dates and between different parties, they may from their subject-matter be so connected that even without express reference the later contract is to be so construed as to be read in connection with the earlier.20 Thus the contract of a sub-contractor with the chief contractor must be construed with that between the chief contractor and the owner,21 a contract of sale and an authority to sell must be construed together,22 and a prospectus and a land contract must be construed together.23 If two contracts between the same parties dealing with the same subjectmatter are executed on different dates and cannot be construed together, the latter of course abrogates the earlier.24 On the other hand, if the two instruments are not connected in intention, especially where they are executed on different dates, as two deeds executed a week apart,25 or if they deal with different subject-matters, even if executed on the same date, as independent contracts for the sale of different lots,26 they cannot be construed together.

4 White v. McLaren, 151 Mass. 553; 24 N. E. 911; Coe v. Tough, 116 N. Y. 273; 22 N. E. 550.

5 Lake View v. MacRitchie, 134 111. 203; 25 N. E. 663; White v. McLaren, 151 Mass. 553; 24 N. E. 911; Watson v. O'Neill, 14 Mont. 197; 35 Pac. 1064.

6 McGeragle v. Broemel, 53 N. J. L. 59; 20 Atl. 857.

7 Young v. Borzone, 26 Wash. 4, 23; 66 Pac. 135, 421.

8 Coe v. Tough, 116 N. Y. 273; 22 N. E. 550.

9 Grieb V- Cole, 60 Mich. 397; 1 Am. St. Rep. 533; 27 N. W. 579.

10 Philadelphia v. Jewell, 135 Pa. St. 329; 19 Atl. 947; 20 Atl. 281. (Hence it incorporates an ordinance requiring the work to be finished in two years.)

11 Mjones v. Bank, 45 Minn. 335; 47 N. W. 1072.

12 See Sec. 30 et seq.

13 Tichnor v. Hart, 53 Minn. 407; 54 N. W. 369.

1 Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1; Prichard v. Miller, 86 Ala. 500; 5 So. 784; Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681; 65 Pac. 1110; Flinn v. Mowry, 131 Cal. 481; 63 Pac. 724; modified, 63 Pac. 1006; Weston v. Estey, 22 Colo. 334; 45 Pac. 367; Howard v. Ry., 24 Fla. 560; 5 So. 356; Chicago, etc., Bank v. Trust Co., 190 111. 404; 83 Am. St. Pep. 138; 60 N. E. 586; affirming, 92 111. App. 366; Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158; 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; 56 N. E. 297; affirming, 83 111. App. 100; Wichita University V. Schweiter, 50 Kan. 672; 32 Pac. 352; Phelps-Bigelow Windmill Co. v. Piercy, 41 Kan. 763; 21 Pac. 793; Shuttleworth v. Development Co. (Ky.), 60 S. W. 534; Smith v. Theobald, 86 Ky. 141; 5 S. W. 394; Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Salisbury, 152 Mass. 346; 25 N. E. 724; Makepeace v. College, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 298; McNamara v. Gargett, 68 Mich. 454; 13 Am. St. Rep. 355; 36 N. W. 218; Sutton v. Beckwith, 68 Mich. 303; 13 Am. St. Rep. 344; 36 N. W. 79; Eberts v. Selover, 44 Mich. 519; 38 Am. Rep. 278; 7 N. W. 225; Jennings v. Todd, 118 Mo. 296; 40 Am. St. Rep. 373; 24 S. W. 148; Gwin v. Waggoner, 98 Mo. 315; 11 S. W. 227; Palmer v. Palmer, 150 N. Y. 139; 55 Am. St. Rep. 653; 44 N. E. 966; Mott v. Richt-meyer, 57 N. Y. 49; Hills v. Miller, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 254; 24 Am. Dec. 218; Bradtfeldt v. Cooke, 27 Or.

194; 50 Am. St. Rep. 701; 40 Pac. 1; Dallas National Bank v. Davis, 78 Tex. 362; 14 S. W. 706; Rhoades v. R. R., 49 W. Va. 494; 87 Am. St. Rep. 826; 55 L. R. A. 170; 39 S. E. 209; Hannig v. Mueller, 82 Wis. 235; 52 N. W. 98.

2 Weber v. Rothchild, 15 Or. 385; 3 Am. St. Rep. 162; 15 Pac. 650.

3 Beach's Appeal, 58 Conn. 464; 20 Atl. 475; Seieroe v. Bank, 50 Neb. 612; 70 N. W. 220.

4 Solomon Solar Salt Co. v. Barber, 58 Kan. 419; 49 Pac. 524.

5 Bradtfeldt v. Cooke, 27 Or. 194; 50 Am. St. Rep. 701; 40 Pac. 1.

6 Interstate, etc., Association v. Knapp, 20 Wash. 225; 55 Pac. 48; rehearing denied, 20 Wash. 230; 55 Pac. 931.

7 Stapleton v. Brannon, 102 Wis. 26; 78 N. W. 181.

8 Edling v. Bradford, 30 Neb. 593; 46 N. W. 836.

9 Coughran v. Bigelow, 9 Utah 260; 34 Pac. 51.

10 St. Paul, etc., Ry. v. Depot Co., 44 Minn. 325; 46 N. W. 566.

11 Clark v. Needham, 125 Mich. 84; 84 Am. St. Rep. 559; 51 L. R. A. 785; 83 N. W. 1027. (To show that the lease was intended to create a monopoly. See Sec. 434.)

12 Copeland v. Sumers, 138 Ind. 219; 35 N. E. 514; rehearing denied, 138 Ind. 226; 37 N. E. 971.

13 Chute v. Washburn. 44 Minn. 312; 46 N. W. 555.

Georgia, etc., Co. v. Smith, 83 Ga. 626; 10 S. E. 235.

15 Jennings v. Todd, 118 Mo. 296; 40 Am. St. Hep. 373; 24 S. W. 148.

16 Drennen v. Satterfield, 119 Ala. 84; 24 So. 723; Melone v. Ruffino, 129 Cal. 514; 79 Am. St. Rep. 127;

62 Pac. 93; Chicago, etc., Bank v. Trust Co., 190 111. 404; 83 Am. St. Rep. 138; 60 N. E. 586; affirming, 92 111. App. 366; Delogny v. Mercer. 43 La. Ann. 205; 8 So. 903; Talbott v. Heinze, 25 Mont. 4; 63 Pac. 624; Mt. Morris v. Thomas, 158 N. Y. 450; 53 N. E. 214.

17 Talbott v. Heinze, 25 Mont. 4;

63 Pac. 624.

18 Mt. Morris v. Thomas, 158 N. Y. 450; 53 N. E. 214.

19 Leach v. Rains, 149 Ind. 152; 48 N. E. 858.

20 Drennen v. Satterfield, 119 Ala. 84; 24 So. 723; Melone v. Ruffino, 129 Cal. 514; 79 Am. St. 127; 62 Pac. 93; Delogny v. Mercer. 43 La. Ann. 205; 8 So. 903; Shaw v. Church, 44 Minn. 22; 46 N. W. 146,

21 Shaw v. Church, 44 Minn. 22: 46 N. W. 146.

22 Melone v. Ruffino. 129 Cal. 514; 79 Am. St. Rep. 127; 62 Pac. 93.

23 Delogny v. Mercer, 43 La. Ann. 205; 8 So. 903.