In order that a written contract may be treated as incomplete so as to make extrinsic evidence of other terms admissible, it must show upon its face that it is incomplete.1 A written contract is assumed to be complete.2 A form of attack on the parol evidence rule, often so disguised as to be difficult of detection, consists in claiming that a written contract, complete on its face, is incomplete, and in offering to establish this by extrinsic evidence of terms not reduced to writing. This evidence is sought to be used both to show that the written contract is incomplete and to establish the terms of the contract not reduced to writing. This cannot be done. The use of such evidence violates the spirit and purpose of the parol evidence rule.3 So under a complete written contract of sale extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show sale by sample.4 So under a complete written contract for the sale of a boiler of certain specified dimensions for a tug extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the seller was to examine the tug and furnish the size of boiler necessary.5 The question of whether a written contract upon which suit is brought is complete or not is for the court.6 A contract may show on its face that it is incomplete by express reference to an oral agreement as part thereof without specifying what such oral agreement is.7 Thus "as per conversation,"8 or "as per our conversation of yesterday,"9 or as hereafter agreed,"10 shows that the contract is incomplete. So a contract for advertisements which refers to "our contract price for glass other than we have estimated on, or contracted for prior to the date hereof," and does not otherwise specify what that contract price is, is on its face incomplete by reason of the reference to such other contract, and such other contract may be enforced, though oral.11 A note given in performance of a contract is not a complete memorandum of the terms of the contract. Accordingly evidence is admissible to show an agreement to pay the debt for which the note was given out of the proceeds of an insurance policy, thereby waiving exemptions as to such policy,12 or to show an oral warranty, by the payee, of the article sold,13 even if the note reserves title to the horse until payment.14 So a writing intended only to secure a lien15 or to make a charge of the price16 neither of them prevent evidence of an oral warranty. So if a written order for shipping soap is made out by the vendor's agent, the vendee writing on it "accepted " and signing his name, the vendee may show that the contract was that all the soap was to be shipped to him, but that he was to take and pay for only one half of it, the other half to be delivered by him to another druggist.17 A sheriff's return of a sale is so far incomplete that it may be shown that the purchaser bought for another lien-holder, and that conveyance was made under such arrangement.18 A memorandum may appear incomplete on its face by showing that a time of payment was fixed, but not showing what the time was,19 or where the memorandum shows only the purchase price and the time of payment.20 The use of "etc." does not of itself show that the contract is incomplete.21

8 Rivers v. Sugar Co., 52 La. Ann. 762; 27 So. 118.

9 Crown Slate Co. v. Allen, 199 Pa. St. 239; 48 Atl. 968.

10 Nelson v. Willey, 97 Md. 373; 55 Atl. 527.

11 Forsyth Mfg. Co. v. Castlen, 112 Ga. 199; 81 Am. St. Rep. 28; 37 S. E. 485; Railroad v. Morey, 47 O. S. 207; 7 L. R. A. 701; 24 N. E. 269.

12 Merrill v. Sypert, 65 Ark. 51; 44 S. W. 462; Barrie v. Miller, 104 Ga. 312; 30 S. E. 840; Chapman v. Clements (Ky.), 56 S. W. 646; Germain v. Lumber Co., 116 Mich. 245; 74 N. W. 644; same case, 78 N. W.

1007; State v. Cass County, 60 Neb. 566; 83 N. W. 733; Doubleday v. Coal Co., 122 N. C. 675; 30 S. E. 21; F. A. Thomas Machine Co. v. Voelker, 23 R. I. 441; 50 Atl. 838.

13 Greenfield v. Gilman, 140 N. Y. 168; 35 N. E. 435; Bruce v. Moon, 57 S. C. 60; 35 S. E. 415.

1 Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Crane, 208 111. 218; 70 N. E. 319; affirming. 103 111. App. 647; Brantingham v. Huff, 174 N. Y. 53; 95 Am. St. Rep. 545; 66 N. E. 620; Dady v. O'Rourke, 172 N. Y. 447; 65 N. E. 273; Stowell v. Ins. Co., 163 N. Y. 298; 57 N. E. 480; Case v. Bridge Co., 134 N. Y. 78; 31 N.

E. 254; Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N. Y. 133; 27 N. E. 961; John O'Brien Lumber Co. v. Wilkinson, 117 Wis. 468; 94 N. W. 337.

2Mackey v. Magnon, 28 Colo. 100;

62 Pac. 945; affirming. 54 Pac. 907; McKegney v. Widekind, 6 Bush. (Ky.) 107.

3 The Bertha, 91 Fed. 272; 33 C. C. A. 509; Harrison v. McCormick, 89 Cal. 327; 23 Am. St. Rep. 469; 26 Pac. 830; Forsyth Mfg. Co. v. Castlen, 112 Ga. 199; 81 Am. St. Rep. 28; 37 S. E. 485; McEnery v. McEnery, 110 la. 718; 80 N. W. 1071; Church of Holy Communion v. Paterson, 63 N. J. L. 470; 55 L. R. A. 81; 43 Atl. 696; Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331; 43 Am. Rep. 380; Slaughter v. Smither, 97 Va. 202; 33 S. E. 544; Pacific National Bank v. Bridge Co., 23 Wash. 425;

63 Pac. 207. "If we may go outside of the instrument to prove that there was a stipulation not contained in it, and so that only part of the contract was put in writing, and then, because of that fact, enforce the oral stipulation, there will be little value left in the rule itself." Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288, 294; quoted in Pacific National Bank v. Bridge Co., 23 Wash. 425, 430; 63 Pac. 207.

4 Harrison v. McCormick, 89 Cal. 327; 23 Am. St. Rep. 469; 26 Pac. 830.

5 The Bertha, 91 Fed. 272; 33 C. C. A. 509.

6 Harrison v. McCormick, 89 Cal. 327; 23 Am. St. Rep. 469; 26 Pac. 830; Hirsch v. Mills Co., 40 Or. 601; 67 Pac. 949; 68 Pac. 733. Apparently contra, Hines v. Willcox, 96 Tenn. 148; 54 Am. St. Rep. 823; 34 L. R. A. 824; 33 S. W. 914; Steed v. Harvey. 18 Utah 367; 72 Am. St. Rep. 789; 54 Pac. 1011.

7 Wolff v. Wells Fargo & Co., 115 Fed. 32; 52 C. C. A. 626.

8Selig v. Rehfuss, 195 Pa. St. 200; 45 Atl. 919.

9 Anderson v. Surety Co., 196 Pa. St. 288; 46 Atl. 306.

10 Morrison v. Dickey, 119 Ga. 698; 46 S. E. 863.

11 Hand v. Drug Co., 63 Minn. 539; 65 N. W. 1081.

12Murdy v. Skyles, 101 la. 549; 63 Am. St. Rep. 411; 70 N. W. 714.

13Hille v. Adair (Ky.), 58 S. W. 697.

14 Nauman v. Ullman, 102 Wis. 92; 78 N. W. 159.

15 Potter v. Easton, 82 Minn. 247; 84 N. W. 1011.

16 "Terms cash. Mr. E. P. Putnam to T. F. McDonald, dr., one bicycle $47.50. Paid July 27, 1896." Putnam v. McDonald, 72 Vt. 4; 47 Atl. 159.

17 Colgate v. Latta, 115 X. C. 127; 26 L. R. A. 321; 20 S. E. 388.