Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible in an action on a written contract, to show the understanding of the meaning and effect of such contract entertained by one or both the parties thereto when the contract was entered into. If the intention of one party alone is shown, and the evidence does not show that the other parties acquiesced therein, no contract of any sort is shown to exist.1 If extrinsic evidence is introduced to show the common understanding and intention of both the parties to the contract, such evidence violates the parol evidence rule.2 Thus where the contract is conceded to be valid, extrinsic evidence of representations of an agent, made at the time the contract was entered into, is inadmissible to show the intention of the parties.3 So a written contract for employment cannot be varied by extrinsic evidence of a contract to pay extra compensation for work overtime.4 So if the time of performance is fixed in the written contract a contemporaneous oral agreement changing such time, either lengthening it,5 or shortening it,6 is inadmissible. So a contemporaneous agreement cannot change the place of performance from that fixed by the written contract.7

53 Racine County Bank v. Keep, 13 Wis. 209.

54 Bryan v. Harrison, 76 N. C. 360; Stearns v. Mason, 24 Gratt. (Va.) 484.

55 Confederate Note Case, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 548; Carmichael v. White, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 262; Donley v. Tindall. 32 Tex. 43; 5 Am. Rep. 234.

56 Conner v. Clark, 12 Cal. 168; 73 Am. Dee. 529; Murchie v. Peek, 160 111. 175; 43 N. E. 356; Currier v. Hale, 8 All. (Mass.) 47; Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319; 40 N. W. 66; Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Or. 251; 38 Pac. 185; Ellis v. Hamilton, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 512.

57 Lake Side Land Co. v. Drom-goole, 89 Ala. 505.

58 Fuller v. Law, 207 Pa. St. 101; 56 Atl. 333.

59 McMicken v. Webb, 6 How. (U. S.) 292.

1 Terrell v. Huff, 108 Ga. 655; 34 S. E. 345; Brown v. Langner, 25 Ind. App. 538; 58 N. E. 743; Mc-Leod v. Johnson, 96 Me. 271; 52 Atl. 760; Gulledge v. Woolen Mills, 75 Miss. 297; 22 So. 952; Arming-ton v. Stelle, 27 Mont. 13; 94 Am. St. Rep. 811; 69 Pac. 115; Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Lumber Co., 11 Okla. 579, 585; 69 Pac. 936, 938.

2 Davis v. Robert. 89 Ala. 402; 18 Am. St. Rep. 126; 8 So. 114; Hartford, etc., Association v. Goldreyer, 71 Conn. 95; 41 Atl. 659; Bass Dry-Goods Co. v. Mfg. Co., 113 Ga. 1142; 39 S. E. 471; Commercial, etc., Co. v. Bates, 176 111. 194; 52 N. E. 49; Cravens v. Cotton Mills, 120 Ind. 6; 16 Am. St. Rep. 298; 21 N. E. 981; Buckeye Mfg. Co. v. Machine Works, 26 Ind. App. 7; 58 N. E. 1069; Clement v. Drybread, 108 Ia. 701; 78 N. W. 235; Pratt v. Prouty, 104 Ia. 419; 65 Am. St. Rep. 472; 73 N. W. 1035; Neal v. Hopkins, 87 Md. 19; 39 Atl. 322; Morton v. Clark, 181 Mass. 134; 63 N. E. 409; Haynes v. Hobbs, - Mich. - ; 98 N. W. 978; Crane v. Bayley, 126 Mich. 323; 85 N. W. 874; Sheley v. Brooks, 114 Mich. 11; 72 N. W. 37; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Higginbotham (Miss.), 29 So. 79; Garneau v. Cohn, 61 Neb. 500; 85 N. W. 531; Faulkner v. Gilbert, 61 Neb. 602;

85 N. W. 843; Latenser v. Misner, 56 Neb. 340; 76 N. W. 897; Saddlery Hardware Co. v. Hillsborough Mills, 68 N. H. 216; 73 Am. St. Rep. 569; 44 Atl. 300; Price v. Weed, 9 N. M. 397; 54 Pac. 231; McKenzie v. Houston, 130 N. C. 566; 41 S. E. 780; Dougherty v. Norwood, 196 Pa. St. 92; 46 Atl. 384; Melcher v. Hill, 194 Pa. St. 440; 45 Atl. 488; Sloan v. King (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 541; Gibson v. Rourke Co., 22 Wash. 449; 61 Pac. 162; Michels v. Rustemeyer, 20 Wash. 597; 56 Pac. 380; Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Board of Education, 49 W. Va. 360; 38 S. E. 679; Crislip v. Cain, 19 W. Va. 438; Johnson v. Pugh, 110 Wis. 167; 85 N. W. 641; Wussow v. Hase, 108 Wis. 382; 84 N. W. 433.

3 McMaster v. Ins. Co., 99 Fed. 856; 40 C. C. A. 119; affirming, 90 Fed. 40; Barrie v. Smith. 105 Ga. 34; 31 S. E. 121; Burgher v. Ry., 105 Ia. 335; 75 N. W. 192; Scott v. Ry., 93 Md. 475; 49 Atl. 327; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Hook, 62 O. S. 256; 56 N. E. 906; Meyer-Bruns v. Ins. Co., 189 Pa. St. 579; 42 Atl. 297; Milwaukee Carnival Association v. King, etc., Co., 112 Wis. 647; 88 N. W. 598.

4 The Lakme, 93 Fed. 230.