A receipt, if free from contractual terms, is a mere recital of the fact of the payment of money or delivery of property. The parol evidence rule does not apply to such receipts, and they may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence like other recitals of fact.1 Thus a receipt for an insurance premium,2 the receipt of property by a common carrier shown in the bill of lading,3 either as to the fact of the receipt of goods at all4 or as to the quantity of goods received,5 a receipt of property shown by a load-check,6 a check given by a sleeping-car conductor to a passenger on the surrender of the passenger's ticket to the conductor,7 an entry by a bank in a pass-book, showing money received by the bank to the credit of the depositor,8 and a recital in a non-negotiable note that a part of its consideration is for services heretofore rendered,9 are each mere receipts, and may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence. Accordingly the party giving the receipt may show that the party paying money to him did so as agent for another person.10 So a receipt does not prevent the parties thereto from showing by whom the purchase was really made.11

1 Rarden v. Cunningham, 136 Ala. 263; 34 So. 26; Gravlee v. Lamkin, 120 Ala. 210; 24 So. 756; Jenne v. Burger, 120 Cal. 444; 52 Pac. 706; Colorado, etc., Co. v. Ponick, -Colo. App. -; 66 Pac. 458; Starkweather v. Maginnis, 196 111. 274; 63 N. E. 692; McDonald v. Danahy, 96 Ill. 133; 63 N. E. 648; Mer-vhants' Dispatch Transportation Co. v. Furthmann, 149 111. 66; 41 Am. St. Rep. 265; 36 N. E. 624; Henry v. Henry, 11 Ind. 236; 71 Am. Dec. 354; Missouri Pacific Ry. v. Lovelace, 57 Kan. 195; 45 Pac. 590; Wilkinson v. Scott, 17 Mass. 249; Hennessy v. Furniture Co., - Mont. -; 76 Pac. 291; Morse v. Rice, 36 Neb. 212; 54 N. W. 308; Kenny v. Kane, 50 N. J. L. 562; 14 Atl. 597; Smith v. Holland, 61 N. Y. 635; Kirkpatrick v. Smith, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 188; Cushwa v. Building Association, 45 W. Va. 490; 32 S. E. 259; Twohy Mercantile Co. v. McDonald's Estate, 108 Wis. 21; 83 N. W. 1107.

2Robison v. Wolf, 27 Ind. App. 683; 62 N. E. 74; Sargent v. Ins.

Co., 189 Pa. St. 341; 41 Atl. 351.

3 The Lady Franklin, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 325; Planters' Fertilizer Mfg. Co. v. Elder, 101 Fed. 1001; 42 C. C. A. 130; Pereira v. Ry., 66 Cal. 92; 4 Pac. 988; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. v. Bank, 178 111. 506; 53 N. E. 326; Merchants' Dispatch Co. v. Furthmann, 149 111. 66; 41 Am. St. Rep. 265; 36 N. E. 624; Chapin v. Ry., 79 la. 582; 44 N. W. 820; Blanc-hard v. Page, 8 Gray (Mass.) 281; Strong v. Ry., 15 Mich. 206; 93 Am. Dec. 184; Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590; Ellis v. Willard, 9 N. Y. 529; Dean v. King, 22 O. S. 118; May v. Babcock, 4 Ohio 334.

4 Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665; The Lady Franklin, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 325; National Bank v. Ry., 44 Minn. 224; 20 Am. St. Rep. 566; 9 L. R. A. 263; 46 N. W. 342, 560.

5Hall v. Mayo, 7 All. (Mass.) 454; Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590; Dean v. King, 22 O. S. 118.

6 Anderson v. Flouring Mills Co., 37 Or. 483; 82 Am. St. Rep. 711; 50 L. R. A. 235; 60 Pac. 839.