Extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements between parties is inadmissible to vary the terms of the written contract which they have entered into;1 and this is true of prior written negotiations.2 Thus, in a land contract, extrinsic evidence changing a corner3 or a boundary,4 of the land contracted for, is inadmissible. So under a written lease extrinsic evidence of an oral covenant not to assign is inadmissible.5 So under a written contract for subscription to corporate stock of a railroad company a prior oral contract that a railroad station will be located next to the property of the subscriber cannot be enforced.6 So under a written contract to make and sell a machine an oral representation that such machine could be put on the market at a certain price cannot be regarded as a term of the contract.7

5 Gordon v. Niemann, 118 N. Y. 152; 23 N. E. 454.

6 Cleckley v. Fidelity Co., 117 Ga. 466; 43 S. E. 725.

7 Samuel M. Lawder & Sons Co. v. Grocer Co., 97 Md. 1; 54 Atl. 634.

1 Anderson v. Wainwright, 67 Ark. 62; 53 S. W. 566; Billiard v. Brewer, 118 Ga. 918; 45 S. E. 711; Hose v. Zinc Co., - Kan. - ; 74 Pac. 625; Rough v. Breitung, 117 Mich. 48; 75 N. W. 147; Coates v. Bacon, 77 Miss. 320; 27 So. 621; Norfolk Beet Sugar Co. v. Berger, 1 Neb. Unofficial Rep. 151; 95 N. W. 336; Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Neb. 592; 78 N. W. 288; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Lumber Co., 11 Okla. 579. 585; 69

Pac. 936, 938; Streator v. Paxton, 201 Pa. St. 135; 50 Atl. 926; Hask-ins v. Dern, 19 Utah 89; 56 Pac. 953; Maupin v. Ins. Co., 53 W. Va. 557; 45 S. E. 1003.

2 Rough v. Breitung, 117 Mich. 48; 75 N. W. 147.

3 Town of Kane v. Farrelly, 192 111. 521; 61 N. E. 648.

4 Weaver v. Stoner, 114 Ga. 165; 39 S. E. 874.

5 Rickard v. Dana, 74 Vt. 74; 52 Atl. 113.

6 Philadelphia, etc., Co. v. Conway, 177 Pa. St. 364; 35 Atl. 716.

7 Macklem v. Fales, 130 Mich. 66; 89 N. W. 581.